Hansard Transcript 1988-May-04 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Pollock: Colonel John Foote passed away at his home in Cobourg on Monday. He was the only chaplain in the Canadian Army ever to win the Victoria Cross. He won that medal for his efforts at the Dieppe raid.

During the Dieppe raid, Colonel Foote carried the wounded back to the landing-craft, and then when the landing-craft left, he remained behind actually to care for the wounded and minister to the dying. He also was a prisoner of war for the rest of the period of the war and helped to keep morale high in the prisoner-of-war camps.

He was born in Madoc township, received his education there and was eventually ordained as a Presbyterian minister. After the war he came back to Canada and served at many different jobs. One of them was as a member of this Legislature from 1948 to 1957. He served as Minister of Reform Institutions from 1950 to 1957.

Also, he was a very modest man. I can recall listening to an address by Colonel John Foote in Norwood, where he had lived for several years. He was a very modest man and he never took credit for actually winning the Victoria Cross, In fact, he actually gave that Victoria Cross to his regiment, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, because he felt the valour of that day had been shared by all.

I ask all members of this assembly to join with me in expressing our sincere condolences to Colonel Foote’s wife, Edith Sheridan, and their family.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: May I, on behalf of the government, join the honourable member in expressing our concern for Colonel Foote’s family and also our appreciation for his service to the nation and to the people through this Legislature.

I can recall meeting him when I visited the Legislature during the 1950s. My father was a member before me, in opposition in those days. As a matter of fact, my father considered Colonel Foote a very good friend indeed and always had the highest regard for his interventions here in the House and his work as a cabinet minister in, as it was in those days, the Ministry of Reform Institutions.

I just happened to be chatting with the chief government whip, who is somewhat younger than I, and he said he recalls the story of Colonel Foote, VC, having a prominent part in his grade 6 reader, a story which was a great example to all young people.

There is no doubt that Colonel Foote’s life, his career and his record of service are an outstanding example to all citizens, but particularly those of us who have the honour to serve as members of this House.

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words.

Our hearts go out to Colonel Foote’s family. It is, as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has well said, a life that will serve as an example to a great many young people. It is perhaps difficult for a generation raised in 1988 to recall the real personal heroism and sacrifice that was involved on the part of those who took part in the Second World War and particularly those who took part in the raid on Dieppe.

I want to join all those in the House who share in the loss of Colonel Foote. We very much want to send to his family our very best wishes and our thoughts for them. Let us also perhaps say, even in this time of their great loss, that while this is a time for mourning, it is also a time for celebration, for his truly was a remarkable and courageous life.

Mr. Speaker: On your behalf, when Hansard is printed, I will as usual send a copy of your words of sympathy to the Foote family.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BRUCE CURTIS

Mrs. Grier: Many Canadians this week are tying on yellow ribbons to celebrate the return to Canada of Bruce Curtis.

Bruce is a young man from Nova Scotia who five years ago was sentenced to 20 years in a New Jersey prison for a killing many people believe was an unfortunate accident. His return to serve the remainder of his term in Canada is a tribute to the determination and loyalty of his family and hundreds of other people, many of them from Ontario. They stood vigil outside embassies, encouraged Bruce by keeping in contact with him and wrote thousands of letters to the authorities in New Jersey.

I am pleased to be able to make that small contribution. Alexa McDonough, the leader of our party in Nova Scotia, did much more. Politicians of all parties helped in obtaining and implementing an agreement with the United States that allowed his transfer to Canada.

In New Jersey, Bruce was subject to an incredible campaign of petty tyranny. He was refused permission to study by correspondence from Canada. They said he could not mail essays outside the United States. Letters were not delivered to him. He was refused fresh air and exercise for months at a time.

Throughout his ordeal, this young man has shown a remarkable strength of spirit. His transfer represents a triumph for those who refuse to accept something that they consider to be an injustice. It serves as a lesson to all of us that individuals can make a difference.

Bruce, in prison, taught literacy to fellow inmates and wrote most sensitive and moving poetry about his love of this country. Our congratulations go out to the Curtis family, and good luck to him.

WATER POLLUTION

Mrs. Marland: I would like to express my concern about the way the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has reacted to the pollution of the Metro Toronto waterfront by the Ashbridges Bay sewage treatment plant. He seems to be taking the whole thing very lightly and is depending on his almighty program, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, to solve everything. The minister even thinks Metro will have some of its beaches open this summer ‘more often than in the past.”

How can the minister even believe this himself when his own ministry’s report is telling us that the Toronto sewage treatment plants are spewing DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, phosphorus, nitrogen, iron, copper and the wood preservative pentachlorophenol into the lake at levels far above ministry guidelines?

The Metro works commissioner will not guarantee that Metro’s beaches will ever be clean, despite the money that is being spent on water pollution controls and improvement to the sewage treatment plant.

This alarming evidence makes it essential for the Minister of the Environment to implement the terms of a resolution brought to this House by this party almost one year ago. Phil Gillies’s resolution to expand the MISA program to require pretreatment of waste dumped into municipal sewers by more than 11,000 small industries was passed unanimously by all parties.

The Minister of the Environment has had plenty of time to study this. It is time he got on with the job. The minister must live up to his promises for a change and, to use his own words, “clean up Ontario’s waterways by stopping water pollution at its source.”

1340

BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH

Mr. Lipsett: I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge the efforts of one of the many service clubs in my riding, namely, the Quota Club of Owen Sound and the proclamation by the local municipality that the month of May be recognized as Better Hearing and Speech Month in Grey.

The Quota Club brings to our attention that hearing loss, speech impairment and related language deficiencies are the number one handicap in Grey county, affecting over 5,000 persons. This service club works year-round with the hard of hearing. Its services to the community include furnishing the ear, nose and throat operating room of the new Grey Bruce Regional Health Centre, supplying hearing aids and helping to pay for the teletypewriter telephone services.

During Better Hearing and Speech Month, the club’s activities will include a “hearing help” display at the Grey County Mall. Free hearing tests will be offered to the public at their display.

I applaud the efforts of all of those who are providing assistance in this area and also making the general public aware of this communication handicap through Better Hearing and Speech Month.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: I would like to continue with another national Mental Health Week observance.

It is well known that the 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals are falling down around the ears of the patients who inhabit them and the staff who work in them. The hospitals are understaffed. The hospitals’ staff are having extreme difficulty paying attention, as are the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

In the absence of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston), who I hope will read Hansard on this, I should say there has been an acrimonious three-year dispute between the medical staff at our provincial psychiatric hospitals and the government, which has failed to implement the recommendations of the Burkett conciliation board. In fact, they are so unhappy with the government’s lack of response in the area of salaries and working conditions that they have voted to strike or resign, which of course will leave our psychiatric system in a mess that will be even worse than it currently is.

EASTERN ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Villeneuve: I want to inform all members, and particularly the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), that this government continues to ignore eastern Ontario totally. There was nothing in the budget for eastern Ontario because the Treasurer thinks the economy of eastern Ontario has improved. There was nothing in the budget for farmers because the Treasurer, again, thinks the farm economy is in great shape. The Treasurer’ s analysis will come as a surprise to the farm and nonfarm rural poor in eastern Ontario.

Even the Liberal Party’s mouthpiece, the Toronto Star, in a story last Sunday, acknowledged the existence of the rural poor, who live with no running water and often on dirt floors. This government clearly feels that as long as the existence of these people is kept from the urban media, their plight can be safely ignored.

What is even more shocking is that since June 1986, the province has had a report suggesting measures to improve the lives of many of these people. The recommendations are in the report of the Agricultural Council of Ontario dated June 18. 1986 -- I have a copy of it right here -- dealing with the incomes of farmers and their families in Ontario. It calls specifically for the province to encourage regional and rural development, in particular through small and medium-sized businesses.

This budget not only further decreases the mobility of the rural poor through gas tax increases but discourages all business through the retail sales tax hike. This government has no concern for eastern Ontario.

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. Lupusella: Yesterday I joined with the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to share a most important event. For the first time in Metropolitan Toronto, we are observing Motorcycle Awareness Month. Metro Chairman Dennis Flynn read the proclamation on behalf of the Metropolitan Toronto council naming May as the month of motorcycle awareness.

Motorcycles are a popular form of transportation which is constantly increasing. In Ontario, there are nearly 500,000 licensed motorcycle drivers. They use this mode of transportation to get to work and for recreation.

The motorcycle rider is a particularly vulnerable individual. He or she is sharing the road with persons using much heavier vehicles. All are travelling at high speeds. It is essential that we improve the record of injury and fatalities involving motorcycles. During a shorter driving season, motorcyclists account for a much higher number of fatal accidents than do other drivers.

While the government seeks to enact better regulations and education programs and while we step up enforcement measures, we must all recognize our responsibility for a more responsible attitude while driving. In this way we will do more than observe a month where we proclaim motorcycle awareness; we will be on our way to creating a safer driving environment for all people using the road.

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: Yesterday the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) failed to acknowledge the enormous deficiencies of the corrections system. Inmates in need of psychiatric care are being simply incarcerated when they should be receiving treatment. The use of solitary confinement in segregation cells is not an uncommon practice in the handling of mentally disturbed inmates. There is no opportunity for appeal, and for inmates already identified as having a need for psychological treatment, such confinement is bound to be a trauma.

I urge the minister to address this human injustice. It is unconscionable simply to incarcerate these men and women without treatment. It is also a foolhardy policy, for ultimately these individuals will return to society without any hope of integration and survival, and with every possibility of antisocial behaviour.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRE

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I was on the scene of the Kenora 14 forest fire yesterday and I would like to bring the members up to date about that situation.

This fire, which is not under control, is burning near the Whitedog Indian reserve northwest of the towns of Kenora and Keewatin. This fire is about 43 kilometres in length, approximately 26 miles, and up to 10 kilometres wide. Since it started four days ago it has consumed more than 20,000 hectares, about 51,000 acres of forest.

My ministry’s fire crews are making every effort to protect human lives and property. On Monday, 460 residents of the Whitedog Indian reserve were evacuated and taken by bus to Gimli, Manitoba, where emergency shelter is being provided in a former air force base. In addition, about 65 cottagers in the Malachi Lake area were evacuated by train to Winnipeg on Sunday. About 10 cottages in this popular recreation area were burned, but our fire crews were able to save more than 250 other cottages in the burned area.

I commend their hard work under very trying conditions. Cottages on Sherwood Lake, Pickerel Lake and Pelicanpouch Lake have also been protected, as was a tourist operation on Cygnet Lake and the Neechy resource centre. In addition, the greenhouse complex on the White-dog reserve remains unharmed.

There are more than 42 Ministry of Natural Resources fire crews on the scene. We are using eight CL-215 water bombers, including two planes borrowed from Quebec and two from Manitoba. Seven helicopters are also being used to transport crews, carry out emergency evacuations and assist in fighting the fire from the air.

Our crews are today trying to take advantage of slightly cooler temperatures to knock down the head of the fire. The winds shifted yesterday afternoon, and the fire is now moving back east towards Kenora over some of the burned area.

Because of the thick smoke coming from the fire, the Ontario Provincial Police may close the Trans-Canada Highway through the area today. An emergency response team of MNR and OPP officials met this morning to discuss the possible closure of as many as five other roads near the fire.

This province may be facing a terrible fire season. The culmination of several winters with warmer-than-average temperatures and little snow, combined with a warm, dry spring, has left our northern forests, particularly in the northwest, in tinder-dry condition. Kenora 14 is the worst fire Ontario has had so early in the season since 1980. That year, another fire in the Kenora area, Kenora 23, consumed 300,000 acres before it was extinguished.

1350

Although this province is one of the best equipped to fight forest fires in Canada, we need the public’s help in preventing fires from starting. There are currently 43 forest fires burning across the province. What is most alarming is that every single one of them was caused by human carelessness.

Forest fires cost this province an average of $1 billion every year. Seventy per cent of those fires are caused by people. An unattended campfire, a careless match, a discarded cigarette butt, any one of these careless gestures can lead to the needless destruction of acres of prime forest.

Because of the gravity of the situation, I have imposed a restricted fire zone across most of northwestern Ontario. MNR staff will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the safety and protection of the people and property in northwestern Ontario.

I urge everyone enjoying Ontario’s great outdoors to use great caution to help prevent any more forest fires.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am introducing for first reading today the Planning Amendment Act.

My objective is to streamline the planning process to help municipalities and all interested groups that are looking for ways to provide more affordable housing throughout Ontario.

Indeed, we are all players in this, sharing a major responsibility -- governments, private sector and consumers alike.

My ministry is committed to meeting provincial housing objectives. Apart from the amendments, on which I shall speak in a moment, my ministry is also undertaking a range of initiatives to help meet these objectives. For example, we are preparing municipal planning guidelines to help municipalities plan for affordable housing. These guidelines are about residential intensification and meeting the goal of 25 per cent affordable housing in every community.

As well, we are involved in developing statements on housing policy and land use policy.

I would emphasize that my ministry has an important contribution to make in the area of land use planning and the regulatory process. This is why the Planning Act amendments are our priority.

The bill I am introducing today includes several changes to further this government’s priority to help provide housing throughout the province. These changes are, first, recognizing the provision of a range of housing types as a provincial interest. This will enable my ministry to work with the Ministry of Housing to guide and direct municipalities in our collective effort to provide housing. Second, it will reduce the overall time frame for the zoning process to a minimum of 41 days from the current minimum, 65 days. This change reflects our goal to ensure efficiency in the planning process.

An additional change will clarify that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may define a local planning matter to be of provincial interest whether or not a formal policy statement has been declared under section 3 of the Planning Act. This change will ensure that provincial guidelines and other government interests in land uses may continue to be declared matters of provincial interest where appropriate; for example, the restriction of development around airports, or affordable housing initiatives.

The remaining changes of this bill are intended to improve the effectiveness of the Planning Act and do not alter its fundamental principles in any way.

I would reiterate my ministry’s steadfast commitment to municipalities and all interested parties looking for ways to provide more affordable housing throughout Ontario.

I would emphasize again that my ministry appreciates the co-operative work required to meet the affordable housing objectives. We have consulted and will continue to consult with municipalities. Less than a week ago, I was with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at a meeting with the mayors of municipalities in the greater Toronto area to discuss affordable housing. A few weeks before that, cabinet met in Perth for the same reason with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. This is important work. It shall continue.

Similarly, our work continues with the ministries of Housing and Government Services to meet the urgent need to provide affordable housing throughout Ontario.

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I want to reply briefly to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). I am pleased that he has made a statement about housing today. I am not quite sure what the statement is. The statement seems to indicate that the government intends to introduce some legislation -- later on today, I presume -- and that it is considering several other very serious matters that, sooner or later, it will get around to sharing with us.

I am confused somewhat by what is in this brief statement today. For example, the minister says -- the one specific thing that one can pick out -- he is reducing the overall time frame for the zoning process to a minimum of 41 days from the current minimum of 65 days. That is interesting, but that is not the problem. The problem is not the minimum number of days that are required; it is the maximum number of days that are actually used. It seems to me he has attacked the wrong end of the horse here.

It seems to me it would have been much more sensible for the minister to --

Mr. B. Rae: It depends which end of the horse is up.

Mr. Breaugh: I will explain later to my leader which end is which.

It would make much more sense for the minister to announce today that he intends to use his powers under the Planning Act to require that an official plan statement for each municipality simply be that 25 per cent of the new residential construction be for affordable housing than to go on to define that specifically.

There is a good deal of fuzzification here that bothers me. It seems to me that what the minister has said today is that he is going to expedite something, but he is not sure what. I point out to him that we do not have a need for a range of housing sales techniques. If, for example, one is talking about downtown Toronto, surely we do not need to encourage and to expedite the construction and sale of luxury condominium units. Surely he has a clearer focus on the nature of the problem than that.

We will await the specific details, if and when he ever chooses to share them with us. I am happy he made a statement today. I just wish he could have said something when he made that statement.

FOREST FIRE

Mr. Wildman: I welcome the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) regarding the fire situation in the northwest. We indeed face a very serious threat this year because of the low precipitation. I join with other members of the House in congratulating the Ministry of Natural Resources fire crews for the work they are doing to try to protect lives and property, as well as our forest resource, in the Kenora area.

I also join with the minister in expressing our thanks to our sister provinces of Manitoba and Quebec for their assistance. I would have liked the minister to have made clear to the House, though, what involvement Indian people may have in the fighting of the forest fires and what training is being provided to ensure they will be able to protect themselves and their homes during the full fire season this year.

It is tragic that the Islington band on the Whitedog reserve is suffering from this situation and has had to face evacuation. As all of us in this House know that this band, along with the Grassy Narrows band, has suffered probably more from the degradation of the environment than any other group of people in Ontario. It seems that they go through one serious, tragic situation after another. I hope that in protecting their village and in ensuring that they can return to their homes, we will be doing all we can as a province, as a Legislature and as a government to ensure that the community can be rebuilt and that the Islington band can go on to prosper in the future.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Jackson: I wish to comment on the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs today in the House. We cautiously and respectfully receive this with some appreciation. It responds to a series of questions that have been raised by this side of the House.

In the absence of the detailed bill and a proper, objective analysis of its impact, it is hard to really comment. However, it is clear that in terms of this government’s ability to react to the affordable housing crisis, we are again seeing more of a patchwork approach than a long-term, sound management approach to this matter.

1400

To illustrate the point, I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs last year about the very point he raises in his statement today, the matter of additional change which “will clarify that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may define a local planning matter to be of provincial interest, whether or not a formal policy statement has been declared under section 3 of the Planning Act.”

Last year, we asked him if he would look at the problem of exclusionary bylaws and the fact that they work to discriminate against student housing, all the existing housing stock in this province. The minister said he would get back to us. We have not heard anything concrete from the government on this very critical issue. I will again be tabling additional petitions from the students at McMaster University asking the minister and the government if they will eliminate these exclusionary bylaws. We ask the minister to clarify soon if this is the kind of item to which he is referring.

It just goes to show. Within a week of advising future home owners in this province that the budget of the Treasurer will have the effect of increasing the cost of an affordable unit in this province by some $3,000, it is important to note that we are now getting these statements to in some way indicate that the government has a balanced approach or some long-term plan when in fact it does not. We need a proper, comprehensive approach to housing and this critical shortage problem and we ask the minister to participate more aggressively in that debate.

Mr. McCague: One cannot help but be happy about a statement that talks about more affordable housing. However, I am not sure this kind of ivory tower planning is going to work. On the one hand, the minister is telling the municipalities that if they would like to, they can open on Sundays. On the other hand, he is telling them that if he does not like what they are doing, he is going to tell them what to do in the housing field. The minister has a provincial mandate over local autonomy. He is interfering in every way possible, or so it would seem.

FOREST FIRE

Mr. Pollock: I can appreciate the Minister of Natural Resources going to Kenora to view the fire situation there, and let us hope these fires can be brought under control. I do not doubt for one minute that the Ontario Provincial Police is doing everything possible to try to prevent any loss of life and I am sure those firefighter crews are working around the clock to actually put out those fires.

One thing I am a little surprised at is the portion of the statement on page five that says, “This province is one of the best equipped to fight forest fires in Canada.” Why is it not the best? We are the richest province in Canada and we have a large timber reserve, so we should be the best equipped. I feel that only two planes from Quebec and only two planes from Manitoba are not enough for a situation like this, with one of the worst forest fires in a decade. We should be doing more, and one would ask, why was this area not sealed off a little more quickly to prevent this fire from spreading?

Mr. Harris: It might be appropriate, as we commend the firefighters and the equipment, to congratulate former Premier Bill Davis. Two of these CL-215 water bombers are on the scene there, fighting, because Bill Davis said: “No, I don’t want a jet. I want water bombers for the north.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Oral questions, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: It was a fair way down the road to Damascus before that conversion took place, if I recall correctly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer. I wonder if his officials have made him aware of a very harsh fact in his budget. Again, I am sure that if he had to do it all over again, he would do it differently and I am sure he might want to reflect on it before the House finally approves the budget bills.

I know he will be as shocked and surprised as I was to learn, when we had time to consider the budget, that for a taxpayer with a total income of $20,000 a year, when you include provincial income tax, tax credits and rebates, health premiums, the retail sales tax and the gas tax, the Ontario taxpayer pays more than a taxpayer in any other province in Canada. In the wealthiest province in Canada, we are sticking it to our poorest citizens more harshly than any other jurisdiction. How can the Treasurer explain that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not accept those numbers, and actually, the first time the New Democratic Party put them forward, it at least had the good grace to say that Newfoundland taxpayers were at least minusculely worse off than us.

Mr. B. Rae: Before your budget.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No. We would be very, very glad to review those numbers, but the honourable member would certainly be aware that with the tax credits that are built into the budget, our taxpayers paying personal income tax pay at a rate that is the second-lowest in Canada if they are in the low- and middle-income --

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: OK; all right; our health premiums. As far as those are concerned, we have substantial improvements for the low end of the income scale. As a matter of fact, just under 400,000 of our citizens get free Ontario health insurance plan care completely, and of course all the senior citizens who live in this province get the excellent OHIP care at no cost whatsoever, as well as free drugs. There is a wide range of programs that the honourable member has not factored into what he considers to be such an explosive statement.

Mr. B. Rae: I will be glad to share our analysis with the Treasurer. The tax is based on figures that are publicly available, and whatever figures are publicly available, we have used: In British Columbia, $1,527; in Alberta, $1,213; Saskatchewan, $955; Manitoba, $916; Ontario, $1,834; and with the provinces to the east of us, Quebec, $1,228; New Brunswick, $1,579; Nova Scotia, $1,502; Prince Edward Island, $1,420; Newfoundland, $1,794 -- less than Ontario, which is leading the pack even when you roll in the tax credits, when you include everything on the table. When you put it all together, they are sticking it to our poorest citizens more harshly than any other government in this country. How does the Treasurer explain it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not accept those numbers and the honourable member would be aware, in addition to the facts I gave him a moment ago, that the retail sales tax, even at the level of eight per cent, is still lower than every province to the east of us, and for example, although this probably was not factored into the honourable member’s numbers, we have the cheapest beer in Canada.

Mr. B. Rae: Marie Antoinette said, “Let them eat cake.” The Treasurer says, “Let them drink beer.” The reality is that they still get stuck when it comes to taxes.

The Treasurer, who has done about as much for restraint in this province as Henry VIII did for restraint some few hundred years ago, has said -- he should know -- that he has raised $12 billion in a tax grab since he took power in 1985. It would have cost the government less than one per cent of that, $100 million, to eliminate all income taxes for people who are at or below the poverty line in Ontario. Why could the Treasurer not at least have done that in this budget? With $12 billion in extra revenue since this government took power, all it would have cost was less than one per cent of that. Why could the Treasurer not have done that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is getting himself all excited simply because he has tunnel vision. It is not possible for him to look at the good that was done with the money contributed to the provincial Treasury by the taxpayers of this province.

The honourable member will know that we have improved the quality of education at the post-secondary level. We have new initiatives at grades 1 and 2. We are spending a lot more money on improving the environment; both the minister and his chief critic are aware of that. We have a new allocation to improve our roads and public transit, and so the list goes. To be subjected to criticism for having taxes that are too high, and inadequate services, seems to me on the face of it to be totally unfair.

1410

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure the Minister of Health will heartily approve of the Treasurer’s priorities in terms of where spending is going, who is spending what and who is getting it.

Mr. Speaker: Question to the Minister of Health?

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question that again relates to the letter from Dr. Martin Barkin, MD, BScMed, MA, FRCSC, the Deputy Minister of Health, who wrote to the hospitals in such encouraging terms on April 21, 1988.

I wonder if the minister is aware that as a result of the letter that has been received, the Wellesley Hospital has said to us when we asked some questions, and I am quoting, “There will be a reduction in services, but we are not sure to what degree.”

St. Joseph’s Hospital in London has a deficit of $2.6 million. Their review indicates that the hospital is not at fault. They are looking at cutbacks in some services; for example, closing beds in coronary care, intensive care and neonatal intensive care.

Is the minister aware that this is what is happening as a result of the letter that was sent out by Dr. Barkin and as a result of the message from her government that since it cannot stop itself in any other area --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. B. Rae: -- what is it going to do is put a cork on the steam kettle when it comes to hospitals?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important, when we discuss this subject, to know that it is our intention to ensure that essential services are maintained in all the hospitals of this province. As well, it is our goal, as stated as long ago as April 1987 by the previous minister when he announced a special allocation to assist hospitals, that we expect them to submit realistic and balanced budgets. We intend for them to do that and will assist them in every way to ensure fiscal responsibility in the management of our health care system.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister cannot have it both ways. I want to get the minister to focus again on what the government is doing. On the one hand, the government is saying how concerned it is with respect to the provision of services. On the other hand, it is telling hospitals that they have to cut. That is what she is saying; she is using the words “service realignment.”

Does the minister not realize that when she cuts services in hospitals, she is cutting the access that people have to health and that it is a very dangerous thing to do?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me reiterate to the Leader of the Opposition that the majority of the hospitals in this province operate with balanced budgets; indeed, some 25 per cent of them have surplus budgets. We intend, through our reviews of those that have experienced difficulty, to share the expertise of those that have managed over the last few years to balance their budgets.

We believe in the funding of hospitals fairly. Our two-pronged approach -- to look at those that are having problems and to reallocate or look at the rational use of resources in our system -- is a fiscally responsible approach and one which, as we offer advice and assistance to hospitals, will allow them to provide services to their community that have been well planned and are necessary.

Mr. B. Rae: How can a hospital under the minister’s jurisdiction, under the regime which she is establishing, now possibly offer more or better service? How can it shorten a waiting list, how can it provide an operation any earlier, how can it make sure that someone can get into intensive care if it is forced to cut back on intensive care beds, forced to cut back on neonatal service, forced to cut back? Because the letter from her ministry to the hospitals in this province has stated explicitly now that it is the policy -of the government of Ontario that staff hiring should be curtailed and that services should be “realigned,” which we all know is a euphemism for “cutback.” That is precisely what it is. It can have no other meaning to those hospitals that are getting this message.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First of all, realignment does not mean cut. Second, neonatal and cardiac intensive care are part of life-support funding systems and not included in global budgeting. Third, the member knows, as does every member in this House, that our system is designed to ensure that those who require it, and have life-threatening situations and emergencies, receive priority.

We are committed to maintaining the fine, quality health care services that we have and also to ensuring that we have fair funding of our hospitals and fiscal responsibility. If the member is suggesting that we should have open-ended hospital funding, he should stand up and say so.

Mr. Wildman: No.

Mr. Eves: That’s not what we are suggesting at all. Do you have some inflammation in your ear, or what?

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. B. Rae: She gives 18 per cent to OHIP and turns around and talks about what she is doing to the hospitals. It is a sick joke.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: My question as well is to the Minister of Health and it relates to the same question. It is in regard, of course, to the letter that was sent by her deputy minister concerning the whole issue of deficits.

I am disturbed to hear the minister in response to the Leader of the Opposition talk about the good guys and the bad guys in terms of surplus and deficits. It appears that the minister is putting them in two categories: those that have a deficit are obviously wearing the black hats and are bad guys and those that have a surplus are obviously showing the way and acting as an example.

I would like to ask the minister whether she will clearly state -- and I did not hear a clear answer to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition relative to the concern we have about deficits -- if it is the intention on the part of her ministry to cover the operating deficit of a hospital when it is clearly indicated that deficit has been created through no fault of the hospital itself.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have said before on a number of occasions, it is our goal to see that the hospitals provide the highest-quality service with the greatest possible efficiency. To achieve this aim, we notified them about one year ago that we expected them to submit realistic and balanced budgets. We have begun a review of those 22 hospitals that have had recurring deficits. The information we glean from those reviews, which are ongoing right now in the ministry, will allow us to ensure that hospitals are fairly funded.

Mr. Brandt: St. Joseph’s Hospital in Sarnia has the same problem as St. Joseph’s Hospital in London, the Wellesley Hospital in Toronto, and many others throughout this province. In many instances they have had outside audits completed as of this date. The Ministry of Health is aware of the results of those audits.

It has been demonstrated that St. Joseph’s Hospital in Sarnia cannot run any more efficiently than it is at the present time unless it reduces service. It has identified every cost-saving measure that could be used except, at this point in time, a flat-out reduction in service, which I guess the minister would have to approve. They are still going to run a deficit because of the increased workload in the hospital in question and also because of increased drug and surgical supply costs, just to name a few of the things that are making up the deficit they are now realizing.

The deficit at this particular hospital is running between $500,000 and $600,000. Will the deficit be covered -- that is all the hospital wants to know -- or is it going to have to cut back service?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have said a number of times in this House, we are conducting a two-pronged review. The first part is a review of the 22 hospitals that have had unique and chronic problems. The hospital the member mentioned is one of those. What we learn from that review will allow us to assist those hospitals to maintain the essential services and to work more efficiently and also to see why there are those that have repeated deficits. There are others; I do not agree that there are white hats and black hats. I believe we all have the same goal, and that is the provision of services in as fiscally responsible a manner as we can and being as efficient as possible with the use of our resources.

We will assist those hospitals. The information we obtain will allow us to bring predictability into hospital budgeting and to make sure the communities have the essential services they require.

Mr. Brandt: There are really only, as far as I see it, two options available to a hospital such as St. Joseph’s if the deficit is not covered. One that I have already suggested to the minister is to cut services. The second -- and this option is in fact being exercised by some hospitals at this time -- is to enter into a leaseback deal with private leasing firms such as our universities are now contemplating with respect to their library systems. This leaseback arrangement has now been carried out by three London hospitals. Which, in fact, does the minister prefer? Does she want a cutback in service, which she indicates is not a viable option being entertained by her at the moment, or does she want to see our hospitals selling their equipment, purchased, I might add, by the Ontario taxpayers, and having this equipment then leased back through private leasing firms? That is really the only option available to them.

1420

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the leader of the third party is being simplistic in his approach of only two options. In fact, what I am hoping will come out of the 22 reviews and the total review of our hospital remuneration system is a number of options as to how we can help hospitals to ensure they are as efficient as possible. We are looking right now at the implementation of computer information systems to give hospitals the information they need to be able to manage their resources.

I believe the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party, as well as all members of this Legislature, have the same goal as I do; that is, to make sure that all the institutions in this province are operating at peak efficiency, delivering the highest possible quality services to their communities.

Mr. Brandt: The members of the government can applaud that, but in fact the hospitals are being put in a position that is absolutely untenable for them at this time, and in fact, they cannot provide the service the minister is guaranteeing is going to be provided.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. It relates to comments made by the Premier yesterday with regard to special legislation which he suggested he might be bringing in to provide workers at the SkyDome construction site if there is a work stoppage at that particular site.

In light of the fact that he is prepared to undertake some sort of measure in order to provide that the construction work be carried out at the SkyDome, can the Premier tell this House why he is willing to take that action and yet not willing to legislate an end to the Wheel-Trans strike?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did not say that. That is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier was reported as having said that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no idea what a report is saying, but I did not say it.

Mrs. Marland: Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) assured us that every member in this House cares for the disabled. But caring alone will not do anything for the disabled community through these very difficult times.

Recognizing that this is not the first time the disabled community in Metro has been used as a pawn in this kind of dispute, would the Premier agree to deem transportation services for the disabled to be an essential service and avoid this hardship happening again in the future?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are not contemplating that course of action at the moment.

Mrs. Marland: I think the disabled community will be very concerned.

This morning I received a phone call from Susanne Moss. She is a member of the disabled community here in Toronto. Ms. Moss was extremely upset about two things, which perhaps the Premier could address.

First, Ms. Moss phoned the telephone number his government has made public, which provides the emergency taxi service to disabled persons on the Ministry of Community and Social Services list. A Co-op taxi came, picked her up and took her to her destination free of charge, but did not ask for any identification. Ms. Moss was very alarmed about this.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mrs. Marland: I have to give this background in order that the Premier can answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that, but I would appreciate the supplementary question as well.

Mrs. Marland: We got several news broadcasters in the city to phone the same number. They too were able to get a taxi at their doorstep. Obviously, the ministry is not checking to ensure that this emergency service is not being abused.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mrs. Marland: Yesterday, Ms. Moss was told by the Minister of Labour’s office that the minister was about to legislate the Wheel-Trans workers back to work. Will the Premier tell this House today when he is going to direct the Minister of Labour to put an end to this strike and do the humane thing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot speak to Ms. Moss’s problem, except I thought the member was going to say the taxi did not show up. I am delighted that at least the taxi showed up. As the member is aware, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has a plan in place that is trying to take into account emergency situations like Ms. Moss’s, and we are trying to do the best we can in the circumstances.

At the moment it is not the government’s position to intervene. This is being monitored hourly by the Minister of Labour, and at the moment he is of the opinion that there are some prospects for a settlement, and that is our hope at the moment.

EDUCATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Education. It concerns deaf education in the province of Ontario. Last week or 10 days ago, I asked the minister a question about why there are so few deaf educators in our schools for the deaf. I suppose the minister is also aware that there are no deaf administrators or any deaf people in senior positions at all in the three schools for the deaf in Ontario. I wonder if he could tell me what role his ministry is playing to actively promote the deaf community in those kinds of positions, or is his ministry part of the active, systemic and systematic discrimination against the deaf in employment in our schools?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to assure the member that since he raised the question, I did take the time, in fact, to visit the Ernest C. Drury School for the hearing impaired. I want to assure him that indeed our ministry does actively promote the hiring and placement of hearing-impaired people in responsible positions within those facilities. I must say that during the course of my tour of that facility, I had the opportunity to interact with both students and staff, and I believe frankly that our ministry and the professionals within those facilities are indeed doing a commendable job.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to send across to the minister the résumé of one Clifton Carbin, MA, who was born in Ontario, who is now one of the chief deaf educators in the country, has written many books, administered several programs in British Columbia and who applied for a job as head of the Robarts School in London last year. The ministry did not even call him to interview. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I cannot explain the specifics of that particular application. I will be happy to look into it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. On Monday, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), the minister stated that the death of Mr. Pitcher, who was on a waiting list for heart surgery, was an isolated incident and that setting up a bed registry would solve the problem.

Let me tell the minister about another incident, involving a former constituent of mine, Mr. Thornton from McKellar, whose heart surgery had been postponed five times. When he was finally scheduled for surgery at St. Michael’s Hospital two weeks ago, he suffered a heart attack on the operating table and died three days later.

I have talked to a number of cardiovascular surgeons and have been told that every single heart surgeon in this city experiences the same problem on a regular basis. It is obvious that these are not isolated incidents at all. The minister received an additional $1.2 billion for her ministry in the budget of two weeks ago. Her ministry acknowledged some four years ago that a fourth cardiovascular unit is needed in the city of Toronto, but she has done nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Eves: People are dying because there are no beds available for this type of surgery. The buck stops at the minister. How many more people have to die before this minister spends the money and spends it wisely, where it should be spent?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, as I said earlier, our system is designed so that those in life-threatening situations receive priority. Advances in cardiac surgery in this province have allowed doctors to treat a wider range of people. A greater number of people are now recommended for surgery and this has resulted in a waiting list. However, it is the patient’s doctor who determines if he requires emergency surgery. If that emergency is deemed necessary, the treatment, as I understand it, is readily available.

Mr. Eves: Let me inform the minister with some facts. I have taken the liberty of discussing this situation with a number of heart surgeons this morning again. For example, one heart surgeon in Metro Toronto had four cases scheduled for today. He is able to do one; the other three have to go home. Another has a patient in urgent need, with chest pains on a regular basis. He was told there are no beds available. He has phoned every cardiovascular unit in Metropolitan Toronto. He told me it is not uncommon for patients in an unstable condition and on intravenous to have to wait several days before a bed becomes available to perform this surgery.

There are no beds. A bed registry will not solve the problem. We have seen paediatric cases transferred from this province to the state of New York. Are heart specialists’ cases going to be next? Are heart patients going to have to go to Buffalo next to get proper treatment?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The three units in Metropolitan Toronto have significantly increased their workload with additional funding from the ministry. As well, the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council is reviewing the demand for cardiovascular services at the present time and also reviewing the necessity for the establishment of a fourth unit.

Mr. Eves: That is not true and you know it.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is true.

1430

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning theft in the Ministry of Housing. On or about the afternoon of April 20, 1988, the Treasurer deposited $468 million in her accounts. Some time during the next eight days, $27 million has gone missing. Her estimates show she has $440 million. Who stole the $27 million?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like a little more detail about that. Can the member tell me more?

Mr. Speaker: I presume that is asking for a supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: It is $27 million. It is about that high off the floor and green. She will notice it when she finds it.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Just the facts.

Mr. Breaugh: She is new; I have got to help her out.

On or about the same afternoon, the Treasurer announced that there would be 30,000 nonprofit housing units allocated by the ministry this year. Somewhere in the next eight days, somebody stole 15,000 housing units. What happened to those allocations?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The announcement in the budget was that we would be increasing our nonprofit allocation by 30,000 units over the next three years. Those units are going to be a combination of new building plus potential purchasing. Nothing was misplaced. All 30,000 of those units will come on stream, as we said they would, over the next three years.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, in its report Missing the Mark, notes that only 16 cents of every dollar spent by municipal, provincial and federal governments together was devoted to training, skills development and labour adjustment.

The poor and the jobless need training. The council further stated that the existing array of programs failed to deliver on the promise of more training. Can the minister tell this House why his Ministry of Skills Development, the ministry that has the responsibility for job training, underspent its budget by $55 million in 1986-87 and by $77 million in 1987-88?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the member for her question. As the member has seen, the social planning council did report that in its report Missing the Mark. It felt, too, that more training could be done for social assistance recipients. We agree on that.

In training itself, it takes the co-operation of all three levels of government, as the social planning council has indicated. We have done our part as much as we could in the last couple of years in setting up Ontario’s Training Strategy, which is addressed to training Ontarians. We are quite a leader in that in the province.

We have seen also that the federal government has cut back considerably on its training funding to the province, and that itself has put a tremendous burden on the province. We stand extremely committed in regard to training and we are doing an exceptional job. I am sure more can be done.

Also, it is shown that some of the figures used in the social planning report could be investigated a bit more, because the fact is they did not count some of the Futures clients in our group who are on social --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mrs. Cunningham: Let us then stay with this budget as opposed to blaming the federal government and let us just say that $132 million in the last two years was not spent on vastly needed improved training programs.

The minister does appear, however, to have some unlimited funds that he is able to spend on lavish one-day conferences, such as the one that was held in London last Friday, costing thousands of dollars with free bars and shrimp. The participants at the conference have been in touch with me and they have advised me that they are concerned about the government’s out-of-control spending. They are very embarrassed for the minister and they are very concerned about mismanagement of our tax dollars.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mrs. Cunningham: How can the minister justify these lavish receptions at the same time as he fails to deliver programs to train our workforce?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I think the conference that the honourable member mentioned is on literacy. We have five regional conferences on literacy being planned across the province. I am a bit disappointed that the member did not see it as necessary when we got all these volunteer groups and agencies that are concerned about literacy and doing a tremendous job there; that because we provided some food for these people, it should be considered lavish.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The amount of work these volunteer groups have done is beyond the few shrimps that we have provided for these groups. Literacy is a great concern here, and we are doing --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind all members it is certainly much easier if only one member talks at a time, which is according to the standing orders.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. In my riding of Simcoe Centre is the oldest and the largest retirement community in this province -- it is called Sandy Cove Acres -- and there are across the province about 15 retirement communities and another 15 in the process of coming about. There are problems with these retirement communities. There is a difficulty with regard to the registration of the ownership of the modular homes; there is a problem with regard to the maintenance fees that are being introduced or increased every year; the populations are ageing; and there is a problem with the Victorian Order of Nurses and Meals on Wheels for these people.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Owen: Can the minister tell us what her ministry, in conjunction with the many other ministries involved, is proposing to try to come to grips with the complex problems that are facing these retirement communities?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I am aware of the concerns, as raised by the member for Simcoe Centre, with regard to retirement communities. I assure him that they relate to a whole broad set of issues which involve a number of ministries -- the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

1440

As an initial step, my office has been working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and with other concerned ministries and we have now released a report regarding retirement communities. As a second phase, we are working on issues which relate to the impact of retirement communities on municipal planning issues.

I do, however, want to assure the member that residents of retirement communities across the province have physicians’ services and acute and chronic home care services available to them. I would use as an example the services which are available in the Sandy Cove retirement community, which the member mentioned as being in his riding. Right in that retirement community, VON is available. There is a foot clinic on site, home care is provided through Simcoe county and the public health department there provides public health nurse visits.

Mr. Owen: We are relatively new to the retirement community concept in this province. They existed for many years before we started them, in various parts of Europe, such as Britain, Sweden, France and Switzerland. They have existed in a various number of the states in the United States. Will the ministry look to see how these jurisdictions endeavour to cope with some of the problems we are facing, to assist us from their example and from what they have gone through?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: As part of the work with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, extensive consultation had gone on in Canada, particularly in Alberta, and also in the United States there have been workshops and meetings with American groups of retirees and developers of retirement communities. There have been trips to New Jersey and Oregon, where retirement communities have been in the planning stages and have been part of the housing for seniors over a considerable number of years.

I do want to stress that this government has a very strong commitment to community services and, in particular, wants to emphasize community services to retirees and seniors who live in remote and rural areas. We will continue to offer those particular services to the people in today’s retirement communities as well.

VEHICLE EMISSIONS

Mrs. Grier: Watching reruns of interviews with the Minister of the Environment is, I am sure, a pastime all members of the House enjoy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a member’s statement or a question?

Mrs. Grier: It is a question for the Minister of the Environment. It refers to recycling. In recycling some of his interviews, I was fascinated by one on The Nature of Things two years ago where the program showed that motor vehicles in Ontario are a major source of atmospheric pollution. In response to a question from Mr. Suzuki, the minister said: “This is one of the areas we are looking at. We’ve had safety checks. I think it would be very useful to have environmental safety checked at the same time. This is another area that our ministry is exploring.”

Given the fact that nothing has been done about this problem since 1986, can the minister tell us down what polluted blind alley his explorations led him?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Interestingly enough, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore inadvertently uses the same rhetoric as the polluting companies in this province, because what the polluting companies say to me is -- and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) would be most familiar with this – “Why don’t you go chasing the vehicles in this province instead of bothering us with members of the investigation enforcement branch? Don’t you realize that the problem is outside of the factories and business in this province and it’s really the vehicles?”

We try to make a good effort in all areas. The member would know that we have increased the funding in this program by some 23 per cent, even though she likes to use dollars. They talk about constant dollars or something like that. In dollars that you have in your wallet, we are spending 23 per cent more on this program.

Also, the federal government, at the urging of provincial governments across this country, has this year implemented Canadian emission standards for the 1988 model year which are now comparable to what used to be the more stringent American standards.

The member also knows that sulphur dioxide is by far the largest source of acid rain in this province. What we did about sulphur dioxide was that we went after the biggest polluters in this province and we have now the toughest regulations anywhere in North America to deal with acid rain.

Mrs. Grier: I do not know what figures the Minister of the Environment is looking at, but if he looks at my figures, he will find that under the party to my left in seating, the actual dollars in 1983-84 were $413,000; the actual dollars in 1988-89 are $382,000. Out of four million cars in the province, 683 were tested last year. Out of a ministry staff of 2,000, there are seven lonely people in the vehicle emissions unit, and it is one per cent of the ministry’ s budget.

Does the minister really think, given that automobile emissions contribute 10 per cent of the acid rain emissions in this country, that is good enough?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is interesting that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a member of the New Democratic Party, would ask a question about emissions from vehicles in this province, very interesting indeed, because last month this government, under the auspices of the Treasurer, took the boldest, single most effective step to stop misfuelling of vehicles and to stop the wrecking of emission control devices by tampering, when he applied an environmental tax which would equalize the cost of leaded and unleaded fuel in this province. The people who claim to be concerned about the environment, would not give three cents, because they are afraid of losing two votes.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Would the minister tell this House how he thinks a tax increase of one cent per litre on gasoline and three cents a litre on unleaded gasoline -- that is 18 cents a gallon -- will affect Ontario tourism and the hospitality industry?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I would like to thank the member for Simcoe East for the question, but I think the message we should be putting across in this province and throughout the world is that we have the best tourism bargains in the world here in Ontario. I think we should also tell the member that we expect our tourism results in this province will be up by at least six per cent in the coming year and I believe that is because of the positive moves this government has taken over the last two years and in the budget that this will happen.

1450

Mr. McLean: If the minister thinks raising the sales tax to eight per cent and increasing the gas tax is going to help the tourist industry, I am afraid he is mistaken. Does the minister not realize that increases in the cost of boat rentals discourage tourists? It is hurting the tourist operators. Three quarters of the buses in Ontario run on regular fuel. The Ontario transport industry operates 50 per cent on regular fuel. Not only that, but older cars that take people with low incomes to work run on regular fuel. Does the minister feel that the 18 cents a gallon his Treasurer has put on the gasoline tax is fair?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Again, I believe the moves the Treasurer has taken are just ones. In this particular case, all of the money that will be collected because of that increase will be spent on roads. This will improve our touring routes and will enable people to travel to all parts of this province and take part in the great tourism facilities that we have.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Campbell: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. Recently her ministry completed a care requirement study which implied, by some press accounts, that 55 per cent of the people in extended care do not require the care. Could the minister clarify the study’s conclusions?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I would first provide by way of background some information regarding new extended care legislation which the office for senior citizens’ affairs is working on. The purpose of the legislation is to bring together, in one act, the extended care program which currently takes place under two ministries and three different pieces of now outdated legislation.

One of several initiatives which we undertook in the development of the new legislation was a study of care required by people, mainly senior citizens, in the extended care beds in the province. The study was undertaken in cooperation with the Ontario Nursing Home Association and the Association for Nonprofit Homes and Services for Seniors.

The study showed that 55 per cent of seniors in extended care beds actually require less than 90 minutes of direct care per day. The study did not show that 55 per cent of people do not need to be in institutions. In fact, victims of Alzheimer’s or dementia may not require 90 minutes of direct care per day, but they may, in fact, require 24-hour supervision.

Mr. Campbell: I am concerned that people out there, who are families of people in extended care services, are not receiving that message. Could the ministry consider plans to clarify the situation for those families in a very desperate situation?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: As I mentioned, the study was one of a number of initiatives we are undertaking in the development of the new legislation. It does, in fact, refer to extended care in nursing homes and homes for the aged across the province. Those people in extended care beds have, of course, given up their homes, and most of them are permanent residents. Those people are not going anywhere.

Our aim as a government is to prevent inappropriate and unnecessary institutionalization, and I believe the results of that study indicate we are on the right track in providing other support services for seniors in their homes: grouped homes, supported apartment units, a range of choices for the frail elderly who do need assistance.

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier regarding the forest industry’s response to the Premier’s Council report which was issued last month. That report states that the pulp and paper industry should be shifting its technology and investment from commodity goods like newsprint to higher-value specialty products.

However, four days after that report was issued, the only forestry company represented on the Premier’s Council, Abitibi-Price, in fact announced that it plans to build a newsprint mill in Venezuela. That followed an announcement the month before that it is investing in a new mill in Alabama.

What has the Premier done to deal with his council member, Abitibi president Bernd Koken, to ensure that pulp and higher-value paper production takes place here in Canada, not in Venezuela and Alabama?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, I do not have control over Abitibi-Price, any more than the member’s leader has control over him. We are not dictatorial in that regard. One of the things that is happening with some of our multinationals, in fact, is that they are becoming more multinational and are investing in the world.

One of the things that has concerned us, particularly through the Woodbridge, Reed report, is that we have to have far more capital investment in the pulp and paper area, as my honourable friend will know, to compete in more specialty products in that area. It is not an area that has had a high degree of capital investment the last 30 or 40 years.

Mr. Wildman: There hasn’t been any.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, there has been some. There have been some paper machines at Great Lakes Forest Products and others at Dryden and Thunder Bay but, on balance, my friend the member for Algoma is quite right. There is a lot of work to be done.

This is one of the first priorities of the industrial restructuring commission, and there are discussions going on now in that regard. The member will be aware that, in the budget, the Treasurer presented certain proposals with respect to capital cost allowance and research and technology that we think will be beneficial in promoting capital investment in this province to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place to compete in the long term.

Mr. Morin-Strom: In the Premier’s Council report last month, it states that as part of building a world-class industry in this area we need government, industry, labour consensus behind the pulp and paper industry and the profits used in that industry should be used to restructure and invest in new higher-value-added production, as occurred in Sweden.

However, Bernd Koken, the member of the council who is the president of Abitibi, in his statement to his annual meeting last month said his definition of world class is as follows: “To be truly world class, Canada must move beyond its traditional role as a major exporter of products. To do this, our businesses have to be located in places other than Canada.”

What kind of world-class industry is the Premier and the Premier’s Council trying to build; one where we produce higher-value products here in Canada or one where Canadian multinationals take their profits to build plants in Venezuela and Alabama?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think one of the analyses of the Ontario and, indeed, the Canadian economy that was undertaken by the Premier’s Council -- and it came to many conclusions -- is that we do not have enough Canadian-based multinationals, enough companies of scale, to take on the entire world markets.

My honourable friend may want to pass a law saying you cannot move outside of this province, but exactly what is happening is the opposite. We have to assist where we can to create the critical mass to create companies of international scale and dimension. Increasingly, my friend will be aware, international-class companies are locating in a variety of different locations, on different continents, to take advantage of the international markets.

I say to my friend, a Canadian company investing in another country does not preclude in any way its investing in this country and, indeed, tends to be very complementary. Great Lakes, at the same time it made a $400-million investment in paper machines, made an investment in Washington state. Perhaps my friend, from his economic philosophy, would try to pass a law to prevent that from going on. But I say to my honourable friend, trained as he is as an economist, he will know that his political rhetoric in this regard is getting in the way of any reasonable analysis of the economic situation.

1500

MINERAL EXPLORATION INCENTIVES

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday, the federal government announced the Canadian exploration incentive program as a partial resolution of the flow-through share controversy. Under that program, applicants may receive up to 30 per cent of allowable exploration expenses as a grant, up to a maximum of $10 million per corporation.

Could the Treasurer tell me how the province will be treating the federal grants to the mining industry under provincial provisions of the Mining Tax Act, the Corporations Tax Act and the Income Tax Act?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I know that the officials of the ministries of Treasury and Revenue and the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway) are all interested in this matter and I will be able to give the member a more specific answer after we have had a chance to examine it more closely. I really am very glad indeed that the federal government has decided to extend, by this additional program, the advantages of the old flow-through share program for another six months.

Mr. Pope: In the negotiations that the provincial government is undertaking now with the federal authorities with respect to the tax treatment of these grants, will the provincial government assert reciprocity in treatment of Ontario mineral exploration program grants for federal income tax purposes, in other words, allow them to be deductible for tax purposes?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This deductibility cuts both ways, as I am sure the member is aware. We are very glad that this additional encouragement for mineral exploration continues and we want to have it maximized as far as the recipients are concerned. We have to see that it is fair and equitable, taking the fairly broad range of programs where one jurisdiction taxes the advantages given by another jurisdiction. Traditionally, the credits and the payments are taxed, and normally an additional program goes forward to make up the encouragement and incentive that is basically there.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The Treasurer, in his previous budget, recognized the region of Peel as a high growth area and, accordingly, capital grants were just about equal. In the most recent budget, there appeared to be on the surface a divergence between the amounts allocated, public and separate.

My question to the minister, and this has been asked by opposition members but they apparently are not interested in the answer at this point, is: Can he give me some idea of the pupil ratio, public and separate, in the Peel region, that would achieve two ends, in other words, recognize the high growth area, as we did in the past, and also recognize quality education for the people in my riding?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member points out, the allocations that were made last week were made on the basis of need. Primarily, the funds were committed to the creation of new pupil spaces. The current year’s program should create an additional 45,000 pupil spaces, once fully in place. The criteria in establishing which projects were to get priority were established on the basis of need, on the basis of enrolment growth. Whatever differences may exist between public and separate allocations are primarily a result of whatever differences may arise as a result of enrolment growth in either the elementary or secondary panel.

Mr. Callahan: Can I ask of the minister more specific information as to the -- I am trying to put this clearly -- the pupil ratio in terms of public versus separate at the present time in the Peel region. If he does not have that information, I would appreciate it if that information could be made available at a later time.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The differences in terms of the elementary panel in enrolment growth from 1986 to 1987 between the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Peel Board of Education is that in the Dufferin-Peel separate board, enrolment growth in elementary was 5.4 per cent; in the public sector, it was 0.7 per cent.

In the secondary sector, the Dufferin-Peel enrolment growth at the secondary level was 22 per cent; on the public side, there was a decrease of 0.9 per cent.

Mrs. Marland: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: Earlier this afternoon, when the official opposition party was asking a question in this House, at that time, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) broadcast to everyone that Margaret Marland had borrowed his car. I would like to set the record straight. I have not borrowed the Attorney General’s car.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Must have been Andy’s.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not sure whose car it was.

Mr. Breaugh: It is right in there with the $27 million missing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounded like a point of personal explanation.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of the province of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas during the 1987 election campaign, all three political parties expressed their disfavour of municipal bylaws which have the effect of limiting the number of unrelated persons who can legally occupy the same dwelling;

“We therefore call upon the government to act on the petitions of 228 students from McMaster University in Hamilton who have written to the Premier and whose petitions read, in part:

“‘As a student at McMaster University, I strongly urge you to keep your promise to end discriminatory and exclusionary municipal housing bylaws by passing Progressive Conservative MPP Cam Jackson’s Bill 94 as soon as possible.”

That also has been favoured with my signature.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know if any other members are having difficulty in hearing what is taking place. I certainly am.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers in the province of Ontario which reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Bob Nixon, you have gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Sola: I have three petitions on Sunday shopping. I will read one.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We are opposed to increased business and commerce on Sundays. The laws regarding Sunday openings should remain in the hands of the provincial government.”

This is signed by 134 constituents. I have two others phrased approximately the same way with 63 signatures and 16 signatures.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Beer from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Hamilton Civic Hospitals;

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting Kingsway General Insurance Company;

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting The General Hospital of Port Arthur;

Bill Pr38, An Act to revive Prow Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr34, An Act to revive Machin Mines Limited.

Your committee recommends that Bill Fr49, An Act to revive Lebon Gold Mines Limited, be not reported.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr30, An Act respecting The General Hospital of Port Arthur.

Motion agreed to.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 128, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 106, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Simcoe West had some more comments on this legislation.

Mr. McCague: When we adjourned last evening, I was speaking with the minister about Bill 106, complimenting him to some extent on the fact that he has a bill with a lot of amendments that have been and are being sought by municipalities but also warning him that I thought he had overlooked two of the most important recommendations that have been made to him during the discussion on these matters.

Those two points were from the final report of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections, when in recommendation 81 it said, “The committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not enact any legislation affecting the local government electoral process within the six months immediately preceding voting day, in an election year.”

And in recommendation 82, it said, “The committee recommends that no changes in the method of election or in the composition of municipal councils or school boards be permitted after January 15 of an election year.”

I am sure the minister feels good about the fact that the comments that came from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario did congratulate the minister on having brought forward legislation that is not only innovative and challenging but which contains many of the recommendations previously submitted by the association.

“The association” -- AMO -- “recognizes the urgency of proceeding with the legislation so that all concerned become fully conversant with the new procedures and requirements prior to election day, November 14.

“However, having accepted this condition, the association wishes to advise that its response to Bill 106 has been immediate and therefore must be considered to be preliminary. Many of our municipal members find themselves in the same position and, no doubt, additional recommendations will be forthcoming in the very near future.”

That is just the problem. As various members have said, in particular the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) yesterday, the confusion that this whole proliferation of bills is bringing to the November 14 municipal election scene is horrendous in the minds of many people, and the honourable minister is a wise enough man to know that.

I can understand, and I think we can all understand, that probably Lindsay, Brantford, Barrie and a few other of those bigger places are well equipped to handle these kinds of changes. They have the financial resources and they have the manpower to do that. But for some it is very difficult.

As Municipal Affairs critic for the smaller municipalities for our party, the initial reactions we have had to the bill -- and I must say they are initial since this bill has not been tabled for very long -- are various. The retroactive application of the expenses and contributions limits concerns them. The role of the clerk concerns them, and that comes not only from clerks but from municipal councillors as well. The length of the campaign period is of concern, as are the expenses placed on the municipalities and the fact that it appears it could be implemented for 1988.

Making the bill retroactive to January 1, 1988, could cause accounting and administrative problems for many candidates. Some candidates who had previously decided to run in the 1988 elections may have begun their campaign fund-raising before the beginning of 1988, and the question often asked is, “Will these funds be unavailable to them for the coming campaign?” Others will consider it to be unfair if he allows people to use funds for this campaign that were collected prior to the beginning of 1988.

There is a concern that the extra duties placed upon the clerks will create an unprecedented burden on them. Again, I reiterate that, in many of the smaller municipalities, the operation of the clerk’s office is a one-person operation; some of them have a secretary. But I think the minister must realize that, whether the municipality has 100,000 people or 1,000 people, the work basically is of the same magnitude and, I suggest to him, much more when you consider the per-person magnitude of the problems he is thrusting upon them. Clerks will have to prepare a voters’ list, conduct recounts, monitor expenses and contributions, enforce disclosure measures, provide rebates, and the list really does go on and on.

As I said, there is concern about the campaign period. As I understand it, the bill that has been introduced provides for a 14.5-month campaign period, defined to commence on January 1 of an election year and end three months after polling. While some will say that that is long for a campaign period, there are other municipalities that are saying it should be longer. When they say it should be longer, they are saying that it should go more than three months after November 14, at least in the year 1988 if the minister persists in proceeding, in order that they may have a little time to acquaint themselves a little better with the whole system and get their books in order.

A lot of the smaller municipalities are concerned about the increased expense. While I do not argue at all with the fact that all the polls have to be accessible to the handicapped, imposing that by 1991 without any assistance from the ministry at all may be a goal that is very hard for them to achieve. Of course, as usual, we think the minister is spending enough money over here now, so I hesitate to ask him for more money for the municipalities. I will let the municipalities ask him for it themselves from his rather large budget. Someone has suggested that the minister might want to centralize the polling stations. But, of course, if you reduce the number of polling stations, you reduce again the accessibility to people, handicapped or not.

There is some concern about the number of voters’ lists that have to be printed. I know this is minimal in a lot of ways, but some people are concerned about getting them in too many hands and about who picks those up in the scheme of things; then you get a letter wanting you to subscribe to Readers’ Digest or whatever a few days after the election.

I just think the minister would be doing the honourable thing if he were to decide to put off this bill and make it effective for the 1991 elections. We could start debating it even right now or right after the 1988 elections.

I think there is a lot of confusion that is going to surround it. As I said before, the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) seems to be content with it; the minister seems to be, but I am not sure they are getting the message from the smaller municipalities in the province, and it is my job to speak for those smaller municipalities, many of whom have spoken to me.

With that, I just sum up by saying that there are a lot of good things in the bill. It is flawed in many ways, in that I do not think the municipalities are going to be able to cope with it, and it would be a very honourable move if he were to withdraw it. We will have time to talk more about that when, as I understand, the minister sends it to committee.

1520

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Are there any questions or comments on the remarks by the member for Simcoe West? If not, would anyone else wish to participate in the debate? If not, Minister, would you like to sum up in reply?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Madam Speaker, I just want to make a few comments here in summing up. I want to express appreciation to the members for their participation. I believe this act is going to do a great deal for the municipalities of Ontario and for the municipal people. It is one which has been under discussion.

I know there was some discussion about how long the municipal people have had an opportunity to discuss this. It was introduced into the House here by way of a statement on December 10. It was sent out to all municipalities and they were told that this would be effective on January 1. Through some of our municipal seminars, we have had an opportunity to talk about this, and the municipal people themselves and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario seemed to be very much interested in the bill and in its content.

We have had very close liaison with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, in fact, in regard to some of the parts of Bill 106. The AMO comments were to congratulate the minister on having brought forth legislation that is not only innovative and challenging but which contains many of the recommendations which they have been asking for. It would appear to me that AMO was saying, “Let us get on with it.”

I was surprised to hear from the critic, my colleague from the New Democratic Party the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), that the New Democratic Party would oppose the bill. Actually, some of the parts of this bill are what his party has been asking for. Indeed, I know that his party and others have been asking about the optional tax credit or the contribution credit, as we call that. In fact, the large urban section of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario contacted his leader and the letter that was sent out to all municipalities said, “I have discussed this bill with the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Rae indicated his initial reaction is favourable,” so I cannot understand the opposition and the fact that he is going to oppose the bill.

There was a lot of comment in regard to the tax credit. If the honourable member does not want the tax credit, he should just tell me. We can accommodate him. That is what he was talking about.

Indeed, with regard to the tax credit, I noticed that Robin Sears, the principal secretary of the Ontario NDP, even thought that the bill had passed. He said it was passed last month, limiting campaign contribution expenses. He likes that. Also, he has said the NDP “don’t raise money from development lawyers” and that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are enthusiastic about the new legislation. I wonder if Mr. Sears knows who is bringing the legislation in. It is his own party that is finding fault with the bill and, certainly, the discussion about the optional tax credit.

Some members have asked where the small communities of this province are going to get their auditors. I can tell members that there are more auditors in the small communities across this province than they realize.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Could it be that Robin Sears doesn’t talk to Mike Breaugh?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I guess I could ask if Mr. Sears talks to the critic for the New Democratic Party. I am sure after today they will get together.

I want to emphasize that this contribution rebate is optional. Many have asked for it. I have had letters from all parts of the province and from the areas that many members in the opposition represent, saying, if they can contribute to federal and provincial elections, why can they not do the same with municipal elections? They have asked for an opportunity to contribute so that the appearance is not that it is big development and the big people who are making the contributions in municipal elections but that the average citizen on the street has that opportunity.

As far as the work of the municipality is concerned, this is optional. I would presume that the large percentage of the municipalities of Ontario will not want to take the opportunity to opt into it. But the option is there, it has been asked for, and I believe that it is a good one. I might say that at the meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at the end of March down in Perth, AMO spoke very forcefully about the need for this tax credit.

I want to say also that the materials will be prepared in easy language. We have held seminars around the province and there appears to be a very great acceptance indeed. The ministry staff have met with AMO, the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and with trustees’ associations in regard to the content of this bill.

I have faith in the elected leaders across this province. What we are endeavouring to do is to raise the importance of municipal government. I think for too long we have looked upon municipal government as the poor cousin to the federal and provincial governments. I feel that municipal government is every bit as important as federal and provincial governments.

This is another way of making sure that it has a higher profile and that we can raise the profile of municipal government across this province, by making sure that we have some of those reforms in place, reforms that are going to make the governing of municipalities much more improved and, to a greater extent, create a greater interest in serving in municipal government.

I could go on with a number of other comments in regard to the bill, but we are quite content that this bill go to committee and we look forward to those discussions at that time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on general government.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Elliot: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the floor to complete what is really my first speech in this Legislative Assembly. I would like to review a couple of the items, although I do not plan to repeat the 15 minutes or so that I spoke on Thursday afternoon last.

I began by talking a lot about my great riding of Halton North and the gracious people who saw fit to send me down here last September 10. I need to review the expectations that I feel those people have of me here. I identified their number one concern as protecting the environment. They want quality health care delivered; they want quality education and they want improvement in their roads. They want those four things, while we balance the budget and give out sufficient operating capital so that the boards and agencies can operate in a meaningful way. They request longer projections on capital expenditures, those same boards and agencies. In line with the report of the Premier’s Council’s, they want us to make available sufficient research and development funding to compete in a high-tech industry on a global basis.

I took a fair bit of time last Thursday to talk about the research-and-development budget considerations because I feel that we have made a good start in that area. The second thing I had time to talk about a bit and highlight was the increase of $1.2 billion in health care expenditures. I think those are critical and, in a very personal way, I talked about that last Thursday.

Today I would like to begin by going on to the third item on my list, and that is education, which happens to be my own field. I think there are three initiatives in this budget that excite me a great deal with respect to making up for some of the shortfall in that area over the last decade or two.

1530

First, the $900 million in a three-year capital program which will support $1.3 billion in elementary and secondary construction, to me is a very meaningful budget consideration. As we are all aware, $381 million of this has already been announced, and it is nice for my people in my jurisdiction in the region of Halton to know that approximately similar amounts will be allocated in the next two years.

Second, the $430 million over the next three years to reduce class sizes in grades 1 and 2, to buy more textbooks in the schools and to introduce computer technology into our schools is really very meaningful to me personally, partly because it was an election promise, and I like to see election promises fulfilled.

I would like to comment on two things with respect to this area because it affects me directly in things I have been working on for the last 28 years in the educational field. A member of the third party, in addressing this idea of reducing class sizes in grades 1 and 2, made the statement that there is absolutely no statistical evidence to support reduction in class size as being an add-in to quality education in the classroom.

Probably that statement by itself cannot be refuted, but as a person who has taught mathematics in grades 9 to 13 for 28 years, I have identified literally hundreds of students, as head of math departments in four different jurisdictions, who come into grades 9 and 10 with an ability or performance level in that subject area at the grades 3 and 4 level.

The whole idea with respect to reducing class sizes, and we are talking averages here, in grades 1 and 2 is early identification -- preventive medicine, if I may, in the educational field. If students come to me in grade 10 with a grade 3 background in mathematics, which is the case with a lot of students, it means they have tuned out systematically over the years.

I would like to go to the defence of my colleagues in the elementary panel for a moment here. By and large, most of the people who teach in the elementary panel are generalists. They lean on textbooks and other add-ins quite a bit in order to teach mathematics. They are not mathematics specialists.

This is a highly conceptualized area. If the concepts are not learned as a basis, down the road it is very difficult to teach those concepts in conjunction with sometimes as many as 30 or 35 students in a classroom who really want to be taught the grade 10 concepts.

I suggest that the members of this Legislature be aware of the fact that there is a North American and worldwide communication network called ERIC. One can go to almost any community college or any university, and by putting in key words to that program, one can come out with a listing of all of the educational research that has been done on any topic of one’ s choice.

I submit that if the member from the third party who made this allegation in the House last week did this, she would find that there would be copious quantities of research that would be available showing that if we identify learning disabilities early in grades 1 and 2, it pays off handsomely down the road in the later grades. I support that initiative wholeheartedly.

The second thing that has begun to be talked about recently because of the press is leaseback arrangements in the educational field, particularly with respect to libraries. What people are conveniently leaving out of that idea is the fact that, with respect to libraries, it is the current materials that are going to be handled in this way. Some private-enterprise people feel they can service a number of libraries more efficiently with this material, in the way that has been suggested, than with any other.

I concur with this. If anybody reads into that that the archives are going to be damaged in any way, this is not the impression I get when I talk to librarians at the university level. The archives will be maintained and added to, as they always have been.

The reason I mention it here is with respect to computer technology in the schools. When we started computer programs in the schools that I had been part of in 1976, it was because teachers in the schools saw fit to bring in their own personal computers, set up labs and get going on it. Ever since that, in the secondary schools and elementary schools of this province, we have been at least two and sometimes three and four generations of computers behind the ones which are actually being used in the business and industrial world.

I submit that if the boards of education went to the industries and worked out an arrangement whereby, on a leaseback arrangement, all of that type of equipment could be supplied to the schools, we would be turning out graduates who would be ready to compete as they must in our high-technology society. I feel very strongly about the fact that leaseback arrangements in certain situations are almost the ideal way of doing things.

The third item with respect to the educational area has to do with accessibility to the universities. I was really pleased to see the $38 million allocated for that purpose in 1988-89, and more than pleased to see that another $88 million will be allocated in 1989-90, as that is a problem because of the bulge in population at the present. A number of people, including the Ontario Federation of Students, have talked to me about that. They have also talked to me about the fact that residence spaces are at a premium. The $440 million in capital expenditures over the next five years, putting in place 5,000 more residence spaces as part of that, will be welcomed in the educational field by all of those people, I am sure.

The next item I would like to address has to do with road construction. I was pleased, again, to see the $1.397 billion in capital projects in this budget in that area. This includes $33 million for GO Transit extension and improvement and $100 million for northern Ontario roads.

I would like to take a moment here to highlight another thing with respect to this whole area. In my communities, they are having a tough time coming up with the matching grants, because too often, with respect to the Ministry of Transportation, when this is talked about in the press and by politicians, they talk about all of the money flowing from the centre. In fact, that is not the way it happens.

Most of the time, 50 per cent of the money has to be put up by either the local municipality and/or the region. They are doing everything they can to put their 50 per cent in place. I am pleased to say that in our region, anyway, the ministry is doing an excellent job in matching those moneys. We are getting almost everything we ask for because it is based on a three-year to five-year projection. There are no surprises there. They know exactly where the region and the municipalities would like to go.

The final thing I would like to talk about specifically here has to do with the environment. I would like to wind up with that because it has to be my number one concern. I would like to be very specific with respect to my own riding of Halton North in this regard.

When we talk about keeping the environment pure or protecting it, we are talking about keeping the water pure, the air pure and the soil pure. We like to do everything we can to ensure that because, as I said in my introductory remarks, I live on the Niagara Escarpment myself and 30 per cent of my riding is on the escarpment. The headwaters of all the main tributaries into Lake Ontario and on the other side, going down into Lake Huron and the other lakes, rise in the escarpment. I submit that if we poison the water there, we have problems in Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington and the other municipalities downriver on the other side of the escarpment.

This is why I would like to talk mainly about water today, instead of the air and soil considerations, which is another story by itself. Again, I would like to do this to point out the fact that with ordered kinds of planning, things are possible. There is no magic in these things. In my community of Acton when I took over six months ago, I was pleased to see that the Ministry of the Environment was in the process of assessing the water supplies in that area so that ordered development might take place.

You have to do that because you need the water for the houses. You also need the runoff from the sewer plants that have to be put in place when you build in areas like that. The particular creek is Black Creek. I am pleased to say that the outcome of that two-and-a-half-year study shows there is sufficient water for the ordered development the town of Acton wants -- not what anybody else wants; the town of Acton wants that.

It is the same thing in Milton. The mayor there, Gordon Krantz, was successful in talking the region of Halton into a regional urban review. It is under way. The third part of a five-part report was delivered to us just two weeks ago. It looks as if in the town of Milton we have enough water and sewage capability to go ahead by about 8,600 people, which is just fine on the ordered growth we would like in that community. That will take about two years. In that interval of time, we will no doubt put in place a long-range plan that will handle us for the next decade or two. That kind of long-range planning is affordable, is logical and gives the ordered development the town of Milton wants.

1540

In Georgetown, we are just completing a sewage capacity increase, a $10-million addition to the plant. This is done in conjunction with the Ministry of the Environment again. This is an area where, ordinarily, the municipality pays 85 per cent of the cost and the ministry pays 15 per cent of the cost; but in this case that was increased just a bit as an inducement to put in an ultraviolet system which will assure more capacity and purer water, as well as a nitrification process that does something to the ammonia that assures the same thing. We are assuring that pure water goes back into Silver Creek and into the Credit River by these initiatives.

Throughout all of these examples I have talked about, I have tried to highlight the fact that the people in my area would like capital projections on a three-to-five-year basis so they can do planning. They want operating costs designated in the same way, as is possible, because in most cases when you go board by board and agency by agency, the requests are either for reasonable increases and in a lot of cases there are actually cutbacks. They are doing a fine job at the municipalities and at the regional level and they are looking to us for some support in the areas of concern to them, and that is what I think we should develop.

This leads into the final of my three points, and that has to do with balancing the budget. We now have an accumulated debt in the province of $38.8 billion. This costs us 11 cents on every dollar. People in my riding say to me that more than in any other area, they do not want that accumulated deficit to increase any more. Mathematically, as a math teacher, it does not make any sense to me to increase it any more, so I am behind them full square on that one.

I am particularly pleased that in this budget the cash requirement has been chopped down to $473 million, a reduction of $720 million over last year. It is the lowest level it has been in 19 years, and that pleases me a great deal.

In conclusion, it is important that Ontario competes globally, as per the Premier’s Council report. We have to develop our high-tech industries. We need to put infusions of research and development money in that area so that it is possible. We must, because it is important, give sufficient operating money to our councils and to our boards and agencies and we have to ensure that it is handled in a fiscally responsible manner, both there and here. We should give a three-to-five-year projection on capital expenditures. That should become the vogue so proper planning may occur. The budget should be balanced and the accumulated debt should be reduced.

The measures taken in this budget will keep our economy buoyant into possibly a seventh, an eighth and a ninth year of sustained growth. We are just finishing off what has been six years of sustained growth in Ontario. In my riding of Halton North, this translates into a protected environment, improved roads, quality education and quality health care.

I support the Treasurer in his budget and will be opposing the amendment to his resolution. His resolution should be supported by all members of this House.

Mr. Black: I would first of all like to offer congratulations to the member for Halton North (Mr. Elliot) on an excellent speech. I was particularly interested in his comments related to education. I believe it is worth pointing out that when he comments on education he brings considerable experience to that particular field.

Last week we heard a member of the third party, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), be somewhat critical of this government for its initiatives in the field of primary education. She suggested, quite incorrectly, that those initiatives would not pay off, that it had not been proven that smaller class sizes were beneficial. The member for Halton North has today corrected that somewhat mistaken impression.

He quite correctly identifies that early identification of children with learning disabilities is best done in the primary grades, that there is ample evidence to support the fact that with an increased emphasis on primary education we can help correct some of those problems before they become ingrained in children and, therefore, the initiative of this government to provide smaller class sizes in the primary division is indeed a very sound approach.

He also quite correctly identifies that increased spending on computers is desirable. I am impressed with his suggestion that there are some significant advantages in leaseback opportunities for hardware. One of the things we need to do in talking about computer education is to ensure that hardware is kept current, and so I congratulate the member for Halton North on his insights.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any other honourable member wish to comment or ask questions? If not, the member for Halton North, if he wishes, has two minutes in which to sum up.

Mr. Elliot: I do not really think I require the two minutes to sum up. I would like to acknowledge the comments from my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) and to thank him very much for them.

I would just like to indicate that my first main speech in the Legislature was not nearly the traumatic experience I thought it was going to be. I enjoyed it very much.

Mr. Morin-Strom: It is a pleasure to address this budget. From our perspective, it can only be one which is going to provide us with hope of gathering support in years to come, because the public is absolutely furious about what this Liberal government with its arrogant majority is doing to the people of this province. We are seeing the largest tax grab in the history of Ontario by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and the people of this province will not stand for it.

We are seeing a tax increase on sales taxes for the first time in over a decade, an increase from seven to eight per cent. While that may sound like a one per cent increase, in fact, it is an increase of more than 14 per cent on the sales taxes that we were paying previously. This has to have a serious detrimental effect on the economy of the province and on consumer spending, as well as being the imposition of an increase in one of the most regressive taxes we could be using here in Ontario.

In total, this will bring in to this government additional revenues of $750 million out of the pockets of ordinary working Canadians, the consumers of this province, who do not get a tax break on this item when they do not have the capital and the excess earnings to be able to put away into savings or investments. Those who spend almost all their income on consumer goods are going to pay the lion’s share of this tax.

In the area of income taxes, we are getting another tax grab from this province totalling more than $272 million as a result of the province taking a larger share of income taxes. Again, there are no accompanying measures which would see that the tax fairness that we all -- certainly in our party -- would like to see, and the people across this province would like to see, is included in revisions to the income tax scheme in this province and in the country as a whole.

Another very serious area of tax increases is in the area of gasoline taxes. We see a government with its bloated majority returning to the kinds of arrogant approaches to consumer goods that we had under the previous Conservative regime. Tax increases on gasoline were at least held in line to no increases whatsoever during the minority government of the previous two years, but now that the Liberals have been given a majority, they are back to the old Conservative scheme of continually increasing the costs of using our transportation network, a penalty which is most severe for drivers in northern Ontario and for drivers in rural Ontario in areas where they have to use vehicles to get around, where they do not have the kinds of transportation system that maybe Metro Toronto has. Those people are going to have to pay the freight in terms of these gasoline taxes. That tax increase is going to bring into this government an additional $139 million.

1550

We also have many millions of dollars in increased taxes for tobacco products and alcohol products, again focused primarily on consumers, taxes that are paid predominantly by working people, and not nearly the kinds of progressive taxes we would like to see in this province. The province has done nothing in other areas of taxation instead of these tax increases across the board on working men and women in Ontario.

The New Democratic Party spoke up very strongly, as many other people in Ontario did, on the need for a speculators’ tax. With housing prices going through the roof, particularly in the Metro Toronto area, working families cannot afford their own accommodation. Those who already have accommodation are in a very luxurious position, but for the new family or for a family that is moving into an area such as Metro Toronto, the costs of a mortgage are just too high for the typical person’s income.

In fact, the incomes that members of this Legislative Assembly make would not be high enough to pay for the cost of the mortgage for an average home in the city of Toronto today. We are paid well above the average of income earners in Ontario, and still, at those income levels, one could not provide the assurances banks require to afford the mortgages that are needed in this area.

A speculators’ tax would have gone a long way to stop the flips of properties, the wanton transfer of apartment buildings back and forth between investors simply for the purpose of capital gains, which as well are tax-free. Instead, what we should be encouraging is family ownership of their own homes.

Another area of taxation that has not been addressed in this budget whatsoever is one which concerns home owners in their home communities, and that is property taxes. We are at a point today where in many communities property taxes take a bigger bite for education in those communities than for their municipal government.

Through the Conservative regime going back to the mid-1970s and under the Liberal government, government has continued to reduce its commitment to education. Our school systems are now at a point where they are getting funds of approximately 44 per cent of the cost of running our schools across this province.

This province, and this government in particular, campaigned in the last election on a plan to move back to the historical figure of 60 per cent funding of the property taxes for education. It was a recommendation that was made and endorsed as well by the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which I sit on, but like many of our recommendations to the Treasurer in advance of this budget, the Treasurer has ignored it and has not taken any steps to fulfil the needs and desires of the people of this province, and in fact, the commitment he and his party made in the previous election campaign.

Instead, the only area where we are seeing tax breaks is in the corporate sector. The true colour of this government has now come to the fore in this budget, where we see tax increases across the board to individuals and new tax breaks being given to the corporate sector. We have seen over the years a shift of tax burden from the corporate sector to individuals. One would have hoped that a progressive government, which this government sometimes touts itself as, would be moving in the opposite direction, but in fact this budget did the reverse.

There are new windfall tax breaks to corporations in terms of the manufacturing investment incentive, one of the first items promoted in this new budget. On page 4, we see that government is providing the Canadian manufacturing sector with a tax write-off of 115 per cent of the cost of new manufacturing machinery and equipment. This incentive has nothing to do with whether this is going to encourage investment in Canada and spending in Canada.

This government knows that, in total, we are running a surplus, but one of the areas where we are running our largest deficit in trade is in the area of machinery and equipment. Canada runs a deficit in machinery and equipment of -- let me see if I can get the figure -- well over $10 billion. The most recent figure I have is a deficit of $13.6 billion in balance of payments on machinery and equipment.

This tax break applies not just to investment in machinery and equipment here in Ontario or here in Canada, but in fact promotes and will continue to promote investment in machinery and equipment outside of Ontario and outside of Canada. The same tax break is given for companies that make their new investments in equipment outside the country as for those inside.

Surely this is an area where we should have been encouraging Canadian content by providing investors with a break for, if necessary, spending here in Ontario. It is an area where we are in severe deficit. We all have heard the story about the need for a mining machinery industry, for a forest products machinery industry, and about the complete decline of our farm implements machinery industry.

These are products that are high value-added; they have a lot of labour involved with them. Instead, this government would rather see us continue to promote the export of raw materials, of commodity goods and let the Americans and countries around the world produce those high-value, high-technology products, and we are going to give our companies an extra break, a write-off of 115 per cent of the investment they are going to make in those products they are going to purchase from overseas.

When it comes to the items this government is proposing as the positives that are going to come out of this budget, what it is going to pay for with all these tax breaks, we have a list of initiatives in the budget. The first one mentioned here, following the manufacturing investment incentive, is technology initiatives.

Another area where the government continues to make its commitment to one area of the economy only is the high-tech sector located in southern Ontario. There is no recognition of the need to build and promote development in northern Ontario, to promote the development of new technologies that make sense for the resource sector, that will see us producing products out of our resources right here in Ontario, in northern Ontario where we need the jobs, where we still have an unemployment rate that is far too high in comparison to the rest of Ontario, an unemployment rate that is double the rate in southern Ontario.

Instead, this government to date has committed some $275 million from its $1-billion technology fund and virtually none of it has gone to northern Ontario. The major items in this promotion are the centres of excellence, which are good in concept and promote the importance of working together with our universities and building on research strength, but there is absolutely zero of those funds going to any universities in northern Ontario.

This government refuses to recognize that we need quality universities in the north, that we have to be able to educate the specialties in the north for the people we need to build new industry and even to promote and continue the industries we have, and to supply the people we need in social services and health services across the north as well. But no, this government will not invest in our universities in the north, it will not put research and development money into the north and it will not build technology centres in northern Ontario.

1600

This budget goes on. It talks about housing, an area which is an absolute embarrassment for this government. This government is doing virtually nothing to solve the serious housing problems of the province. Vacancy rates are as low as they have ever been in the province. The cost of new housing is astronomical. People are trapped in the homes they are in. They just do not have the opportunity to move to new communities and to establish their own families in their own homes on typical wages in the province today.

Going on within the budget to another major area of spending, the province is spending a record amount on health care, $12.7 billion. I note health care has now reached the point where we are spending $2 billion more on health care alone than we take in, in total, on personal income taxes in Ontario. But the people of the province are asking, “What are we getting in health care?”

I know that in northern Ontario, in particular, the government is not addressing the issue of services that are needed, such as giving our hospitals and our professionals in the north the capability to treat people where they reside rather than the continual promotion of people having to go to southern Ontario to the major teaching hospitals there, when the specialized care is only available in so many areas.

Certainly, the province should open its eyes to the kinds of events that occurred in Sault Ste. Marie last week, where a very serious and concerned group called the Concerned Citizens for Better Health Care held an open forum and invited the various hospital boards, which unfortunately declined to show up at the meeting. However, 700 individuals did show up at that meeting, showing the level of concern there is about the health care issues facing Sault Ste. Marie and the district of Algoma.

I have discussed many of these issues with the. Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) on a number of occasions over the last couple of months. We have not seen tangible action to address the specific concerns our community is facing with respect to serious health care problems.

The budget goes on to discuss some of the infrastructure in the province with the talk about roads, highways and transit. The province has committed some additional funds in this area but the amount is really negligible, particularly when one looks at the needs of northern Ontario.

The geography of this province, for anyone who looks at a map, tells one that the north is an area that is facing a serious competitive disadvantage because of the distances between the various communities and the costs of transportation to get products to markets. We just do not have the highway system to be able to do that efficiently.

Fifty per cent of the highways of the province are located in the north, an area that has about eight per cent of the population of the province, but those highways are not comparable to the highways elsewhere in the province. The highway that is supposed to be Canada’s major connecting link, the Trans-Canada Highway, is really an embarrassment in comparison with what is the standard in southern Ontario, or for that matter, the standard in the United States and many other western-world countries.

In a committee of the Legislature, all three parties endorsed a recommendation that the Trans-Canada Highway should be upgraded and four-laned right across northern Ontario. Members of all three parties supported the following: “Through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the four-laning of north-south Highways 11 and 69, and the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway in northern Ontario should be government priorities to assist with the development of industry and tourism in northern Ontario.” Second, we also asked, “In addition to its own initiatives, the Ontario government should negotiate with the federal government a plan for financing the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway across northern Ontario.”

What did we actually get? This is from a report that was prepared by the legislative research service in the province. “Included in the section on transportation is $12 million designated for roads and highways in northern Ontario. There is no reference to any negotiations with the federal government on financing the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway across northern Ontario.”

What in fact will $12 million buy? Twelve million dollars will buy about 12 miles of double-lane highway or about six miles of four-lane highway. Across northern Ontario, we are talking about close to 1,000 miles that is required. We are looking at a time frame, for this government to do a project like that, of maybe 150 years, a totally absurd amount of commitment in comparison with the needs. There is nothing in there to start a program to phase in this kind of road improvement.

Let us look at what they did commit to northern Ontario, and that is the announcement in the budget of the heritage fund. We have an announcement that the heritage fund is going to receive $360 million over the next 12 years. Why did they not talk about how much we are going to get over the next 100 or 200 years? Perhaps we would have enough to pay for the Trans-Canada Highway. Even at that, the only real initiative for the province is a complete reannouncement of the government’s initiative on the heritage fund from last year.

Last year, the Treasurer promised in his own budget the first $30 million going into a heritage fund for northern Ontario. In fact, none of it went in, so he has come back and promised $30 million again, a second time. How many times are we going to see the promises before anything actually gets spent in the north?

To have a significant impact in the north, we have to have a heritage fund of the order of $500 million to be able to have a real impact in terms of capital formation and new investment in the north. Twelve years from now we may have a fund that is of some significant value, but today the $30 million is going to be very little in terms of its impact in northern Ontario.

When one looks at the spending on individual communities over and above regular spending on single cities in southern Ontario, if one takes the community of Waterloo -- in fact, the chairman of our committee represents the riding of Kitchener. Kitchener-Waterloo has two universities. The University of Waterloo alone gets annual funding of about $120 million a year. That is special funding for that community, a very important economic development tool, but that $120 million is double what northern Ontario gets in terms of its total university funding in a year. All our universities combined maybe collect about $60 million from this government, but there we have one major university in a relatively small community, at least a lot smaller than the total population of northern Ontario, that gets $120 million a year.

Now we are talking about a heritage fund that is going to put $30 million into it. How much is $30 million a year going to do for all of northern Ontario? It will not even buy a quarter of the cost of running a good major university, and that is supposed to be a capital fund, not an ongoing operating fund.

The figures sound great but when one looks at what one can buy with those kinds of funds, one sees how little it is.

Finally, I would like to say that New Democrats have always believed that northern Ontario can develop as a community economically, socially and culturally if there is the political will in a government to do so. We are a community rich in resources. We are a great source of great wealth. But some of that wealth must be ploughed back into the north. That is why we have been calling for a real northern Ontario heritage fund.

Such a capital fund should be used for equity in loan investment in northern enterprises to diversify our economy. The fund should not sit there in artificial accounts, unused, promised from year to year. In the north we are a community where it has been the norm to watch our young people leave for the south when it comes time for them to look for work.

We could be creating jobs in manufacturing if we processed our goods in the north before shipping them to the south or to the United States. A vigorous program of responsible forest management would employ more people today to guarantee our forest resource for tomorrow.

In the north we are a community which has been seriously neglected over the years when it comes to educational and research facilities and technology development. It is vital that northern universities and community colleges be strengthened. It simply makes common sense that research into resources and their better utilization should take place where the resources are. The New Democratic Party has proposed in the past and will continue to promote the establishment of institutes, such as a forestry institute and a northern technology research and development institute.

In the north we are, above all, a community defined by our geography of wide-open spaces. We need transportation links and energy costs that will enable us to compete. The ruthless price-gouging by the oil companies in the north must be eliminated. We have one price for beer in Ontario; surely we can have one price for gasoline.

Without better, lower-cost transportation, hopes for a competitive, diversified northern economy are little more than a dream. I will continue to fight the battle for northern Ontario until the Treasurer and the government see or a future government sees that we do get our fair share.

The Acting Speaker: Does any honourable member wish to comment upon the remarks made by the member for Sault Ste. Marie? The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to compliment the member for Sault Ste. Marie for his statements on the budget that was brought out this year. The member for Sault Ste. Marie has indicated a number of interesting aspects of this budget, such as the northern Ontario heritage fund, which will allocate $360 million -- a small amount -- over the next 12 years, to help single-industry towns in northern Ontario, particularly to help them diversify their economies.

He has failed to point out a few other things, though, such as the fact that this year there are 27,000 extra jobs in northern Ontario that were not there last year. Mind you, those are not all the result of this government’s initiatives. Perhaps they are a result of the better conditions or the conditions that are improving in northern Ontario.

Another element that the member from the Sault forgot to point out was the northern Ontario relocation program, or perhaps I did not catch it in his remarks when I got in. But our government’s northern Ontario relocation initiative has brought, within the past couple of years, 1,200 positions. By the transference of new ministries to northern Ontario, 1,200 additional positions have been created in northern Ontario.

That staff relocation of about 1,600 people has an annual payroll of about $48 million. This is $48 million that will be spent in the northern economy by the people who are earning money there, who otherwise would not be earning money there. It will also result in an additional governmental expenditure of about $200 million in northern Ontario to construct new buildings and new services to take care of these people.

That infusion of money in northern Ontario is a major initiative on the part of this government. It is going to be providing funding up there for people to subsidize and spend in the local economy.

The Acting Speaker: Does any other honour-able member wish to comment? The member for Sault Ste. Marie in reply for two minutes.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the comments from the member for Yorkview, who has demonstrated his concern for northern Ontario in the past.

We have seen this government commit to 1,200 new jobs moving to northern Ontario, and that does have some impact in the north but it hardly compares with the tens of thousands of people who do not have jobs in the north. The member says the government created 27,000 new jobs, but there are more than that still unemployed in northern Ontario. Now the member is touting 1,200 jobs which are going to be phased in over a period of four or five years. That is a positive project, but this government has to do a lot more than just move in civil service jobs.

Those are the kinds of nice, safe, high-income jobs that we like to see in terms of security and ongoing employment, but we also have to try to build an economy that is self-sufficient, that produces the goods we want to out of the north and that provides the jobs so that the young people can stay in the north, not just working for the Ontario government.

That is why we have to look at a much more balanced approach than simply moving 1,200 jobs to the north.

Mr. Pope: I am happy to rise and address the budgetary and general economic policies of this government. I think those who live in Cochrane South, and all Ontarians, should know exactly what this Liberal government has done to them.

Mr. Black: Schools, hospitals, housing, roads.

Mr. Pope: First of all, we have a tax done to them. We have a tax increase that will amount to $1.2 billion out of your pockets coming to the Liberal government of Ontario, which will allow it to increase its total expenditures as a government by over 11 per cent. The Liberal members of the Legislature and cabinet ministers will tell you that is for new capital expenditures, for new hospitals and new schools, these kinds of things that are of benefit to the community.

The truth is the budget clearly states that the capital expenditure budget for all ministries of the government of Ontario will rise from $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion, which is less than the rate of inflation and which is less than half the increase in construction costs in Ontario.

In fact, while they are taking $1.3 billion out of your pockets, there will be less school construction and less hospital construction in Ontario next year. The Treasurer’s budget clearly sets out the fact that the capital expenditures will only increase by less than the rate of inflation, from $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion. Therefore, less construction is obvious.

What the Liberals have done to you is as follows: First, they have increased the personal income tax rate to 51 per cent and then moving to 52 per cent of the basic federal tax for the tax year after 1988. So they have increased your personal income tax rate.

Second, for 1988 and subsequent years, they have applied a surtax on the income tax that you pay of 10 per cent of the Ontario income tax payable in excess of $10,000. That means that if you are a miner working in Timmins and receiving a salary, as most miners do, of approximately $40,000, because of the Liberal government you will be paying more personal income tax to the province, plus you will be paying a 10 per cent surtax to the Liberal government of Ontario.

As well, you will be paying one cent a litre more on all grades of gasoline, effective on the date of the budget, and therefore the tax that you are paying to the Ontario Liberals per litre will go from 8.3 cents to 9.3 cents. Think of the Liberals every time you go to the gas tank, because they are responsible for it. In addition, there will be an additional special levy of three cents per litre on leaded gasoline for a total Liberal tax on leaded gasoline of 12.3 cents per litre. When you go to the gas pumps, I say to my fellow Ontarians, think of the Ontario Liberals who put that tax in place.

1620

If you happen to smoke and you go to the store and buy a package of cigarettes, just think of the tobacco tax that the Liberals are now imposing on you, a one-cent increase effective on the date of the budget, from 2.83 cents to 3.83 cents per cigarette. Thanks to the Liberals in Ontario you will be paying that much more, by 0.6 cents, from 1.6 cents to 2.2 cents, for each gram or part gram of cut tobacco. Think of that tax, if you happen to smoke, the next time you are at the grocery store or the corner store buying cigarettes.

The next time you go to any store and buy any household furnishings, think about the Liberals, because they raised the general retail sales tax from seven per cent to eight per cent to accommodate their own interests down here in the Legislature of Ontario. We will be discussing that. It is not for the construction of new hospitals, not for the construction of new schools, not for the construction of more highways. Their capital expenditure budget is going up by less than the rate of inflation, so less will be built this year. Think of them when you go to that store, when you pay that eight per cent. It is a Liberal tax on every single man, woman and child in Ontario, courtesy of David Peterson and Robert Nixon.

Think of the Liberals, if you are a small businessman, when you look at the corporate tax provisions of this budget and how they are going to phase out the three-year income tax exemption for small corporations.

If you are involved in mineral exploration and development, think of Bob Nixon and David Peterson and the Liberal Party of Ontario and their phase-out of the depletion allowances. They did not introduce anything which will counter the detrimental effects of the phase-out of that depletion allowance on the mining industry. Their own numbers show that their alternative proposals will not have as beneficial an effect as the depletion allowance did.

Think of the Liberals if you are involved as a prospector or a mining developer or a small businessman or a shopper in Ontario. Think of what the Liberals have done to you in this tax budget. Then listen to what the Treasurer and the Premier would have you believe. Even without the tax increases, there was room for a total increase in government expenditures, at 8.2 per cent. There was room for that kind of expenditure growth but, no, the Liberals were not satisfied with 8.2 per cent. They had to get it into double digits. They had to increase their spending by over 11 per cent. Think of that the next time you are paying additional taxes to the government of Ontario.

What are they spending it on? They would have you believe that it is new hospitals, roads, new schools. We have already indicated that will not be the case because of the capital expenditure forecast contained in the budget itself, an increase of $2.7-billion to $2.8-billion, less than the rate of inflation, therefore less construction.

But think of the additional civil servants that the Liberals have hired. Think about the additions to the personal staff of the ministers and parliamentary assistants that they have hired since 1985. Think of the fact that one of the first acts of this Liberal administration in 1985 was to increase the ceiling on the personal staff of cabinet ministers from $45,000 to $60,000. Think of that and think of the growing administrative bureaucracy that the taxpayers of this province are paying for. If you do not think that is what all of the revenues are going to, I have a few numbers for you.

This is a comparison of ministry administration costs between 1985 and this current projected year, 1988-89. Let us go down the list.

For the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, ministry administration, from their own Liberal documents: In 1985-86, they actually spent $16,208,000 on administration of programs. What are they spending now? What are they going to use your tax increases to finance this year in administration here in Toronto in main office? I will tell you what it is: $23,519,000 -- over a 40 per cent increase in ministry administrative costs since the 1985-86 financial year.

Look at the Attorney General’s ministry: In 1985-86, it was $827,000 in administrative costs; now it is $984,000, an increase of $157,000, a 19 per cent increase in the last three years.

In Cabinet Office -- here is a good one -- administration of the Cabinet Office in 1985-86 sat at $3,390,000. That is even allowing the Liberals the benefit of the in-year additions that they made to the operation of their ministries in the 1985-86 financial year after they came to power. Even setting that aside -- because it was massive, and we documented it in the Legislature -- even setting that aside, take 1985-86: By the end of the year, $3,390,000 was being spent to run the Cabinet Office. This year, it is $5,401,000 -- a $2-million increase, or an increase of 60 per cent over three years in the cost of the Cabinet Office.

Look at the main office expense under that.

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s called restraint.

Mr. Pope: Some restraint.

The main office expense under that is $3,303,000 in 1985-86. This year the main office expense in the Cabinet Office is $5,244,000, again a 60 per cent increase in the main office of the cabinet operations.

Let us look at Colleges and Universities: Actual administrative costs, even after all of the Liberal finagling in 1985-86, were $3,062,000. Administrative costs, main office expenses this year, are $5,912,000, a $2,800,000 increase -- over a 90 per cent increase in the main office budget allocation of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

I say to the taxpayers of this province, that is where your tax dollars are going. That is where the tax increases are going, to these kinds of uncontrolled administrative expenses; not to improving the quality of education in colleges and universities, not to improving the programs for farmers, but for administrative expenses here in Toronto.

Let us look at the Ministry of Community and Social Services administrative costs: in 1985-86, $30,974,000; projected this year, $40,660,000, an increase of greater than $9,700,000 -- over a 30 per cent increase in three years since the Liberals came to office. Some constraint; some sense of financial responsibility.

Consumer and Commercial Relations, main office administrative expenses: in 1985-86, $10,584,000; this year, $18,028,000, an increase of over $7.5 million -- a 70 per cent increase in main office administrative costs that the working men and women of this province are paying for.

Correctional Services: $16,514,000 in 1985-86. This year it is projected to grow to $21,629,000, an increase of $5,115,000 -- a 30 per cent increase over the last three fiscal years.

The Office for Disabled Persons, main office expenses: In 1985, main office expenses were $223,000. This year, main office expenses are $421,000, over a 90 per cent increase in the three financial years since the Liberals came to power. That money is not going to disabled people; it is going into the main office of the minister, and it is a disgrace. That is what taxpayers are paying for, a 90 per cent increase.

The Ministry of Education: $2,368,000 in 1985-86. This year, it will be $3,292,000, an increase of $924,000 -- almost a 40 per cent increase, and that is in only one year. I am sorry. I made a mistake. That is in only one year, a 40 per cent increase in administration in the Ministry of Education. In one year, a 40 per cent increase: $924,000 more of taxpayers’ money being spent in the main office right here in Queen’s Park, this year over last year; a 40 per cent increase. That is what your tax increases are going to pay. I say to the people of Ontario that that is what those additional tax dollars are going to pay. They are going for administrative expenses and main office expenses right here in Queen’s Park.

1630

In the Ministry of Energy in 1985, $1,041,000. This year, what is it projected to be in three short years? It will be $1,686,000, an increase of $645,000 -- a 60 per cent increase over three financial years.

In the Ministry of the Environment, ministry administrative costs in 1985-86 were $18,202,000. What is it projected to be this year, thanks to the taxpayers of Ontario? It will be $30,137,000, a $12-million increase in the Ministry of the Environment -- a 66 per cent increase not in environmental programs out around the province but in main office administrative expenses here in Queen’s Park.

An hon. member: And they are laughing about it.

Mr. Pope: And the Liberals are laughing about it. Ladies and gentlemen, it is your tax dollars going to pay for these ministry administration expenses. Here is the real waste we have been talking about. Here is where there need to be reform and restraint, and this government does not have the will or the way to do it.

In the Ministry of Financial Institutions, ministry administration budget, 1985-86, $2,078,000. Projected this year, main office ministry administrative costs, $4,113,000, an increase of $2,035,000 -- a 100 per cent increase in ministry administrative costs that the people of this province are paying this year, thanks to the Liberal sense of constraint and restraint in their own spending, in their own head offices, for ministry administration.

Let us talk about the Ministry of Government Services, and apparently they did not have a full-time minister last year. This is what we are told by the acting House leader, deputy Treasurer, whatever. The ministry administrative cost in 1985-86 was $13,747,000. This year what are the Treasurer and the Liberal government offering for ministry administrative expenses in the Ministry of Government Services? It is $19,765,000, an increase of almost $6 million -- a 44 per cent increase in three years. Imagine what it would have been if there had been a minister. It would have been totally out of control.

Out of that figure let us take the main office expenses of the minister himself, just the minister’s main office expenses, 1985-86: $746,560. What is it this year? It is $2,178,800, a 200 per cent increase in main office expenses in the Ministry of Government Services.

It goes on. The Ministry of Health. Yes, $88,227,000 was the ministry administrative expense in the Ministry of Health in 1985-86. What is it projected to be this year? It will be $120,462,000, an increase of $32,235,000, a 27 per cent increase. Main office expenses -- that is even better: $5,021,000 in 1985-86. This year it will be $6,808,000, an increase of $1,787,000, a 36 per cent increase.

Would that the hospitals would get that kind of financial support from the Treasurer and the Premier, the same kind of financial support they are giving the main office of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). Would that the health care professionals would get the same care and attention as the minister’s office has with a 36 per cent increase in its allocation.

In the Ministry of Housing, ministry administrative expenses in 1985-86 were $15,814,000. What is it going to be this year? According to the Liberals’ own records -- and this is all according to the Liberals’ own records: $21,372,000, an increase of $5,558,000, or over 35 per cent in the past three financial years. We have a housing crisis, and a reduction in actual budget allocations to the Ministry of Housing last year. What do we have? A 35 per cent increase in the allocation for administration of programs.

In the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, ministry administrative costs in 1985-86 were $9,623,000. What is it this year? It is $15,656,000, an increase of over $6 million, or over 60 per cent in the past three financial years.

In the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, in 1985-86, ministry administrative costs were $1,403,000. What is it this year? It is $2,448,000, an increase of $1,045,000. That is an increase in ministry administrative costs that taxpayers are paying of over 74 per cent in three fiscal years since the Liberals came to power.

In the Ministry of Labour -- and here it appears that perhaps it might be reasonable -- main office costs in 1985-86 were $2,930,000. This year they are $3,640,000, a difference of $710,000, a 25 percent increase. But ministry administration in the Ministry of Labour was $12,803,000 in 1985-86. This year it is $26,115,000, an increase of $14,312,000, or over 110 per cent in the three years since the Liberals came to power.

In Management Board of Cabinet, the manager of tax dollars within the context of the government of Ontario, $866,000 was spent to run Management Board in 1985-86. This year it is $1,023,000, an increase of $157,000, a 20 per cent increase in Management Board since the Liberals came to power.

Mr. Black: How many years? That’s just the rate of inflation.

Mr. Pope: Maybe you will find that this is the rate of inflation: In the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, ministry administrative costs in 1985-86 were $5,985,000. What is it this year? It is $12,077,000, an increase of over 100 per cent in administrative costs in the three years since the Liberals came to power.

In the Ministry of Natural Resources, in 1985-86, it was $60,560,000. This year what will it be? It will be $75,517,000, a $15-million increase, a 25 per cent increase since the Liberals came to power. The main office expense was $4,125,000 in 1985-86. What is it this year? It is $5,542,000, an increase of $l,417,000, a 34 per cent increase in the three years since the Liberals came to power.

1640

In the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines -- if anyone can explain this, be my guest -- in 1985-86, ministry administrative costs, $3,771,000. This year ministry administrative costs, in the Liberal documents themselves, are $14,390,000, a 300 per cent increase in the allocation to ministry administration.

Main office in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, combined: In 1985-86 the costs were $1,072,000, from the Liberal budget documents themselves. This year, according to the Liberal budget documents themselves, they are $2,075,000, an increase of $1,003,000, almost a 100 per cent increase in the main office expenses. Main office expenses, a 100 per cent increase -- not for northern residents; for main office expenses for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines right here in Queen’s Park.

Let us see what the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), our tax collector who collects taxes from Ontario men and women taxpayers, spends on himself for ministry administration. In 1985-86 it was $ 16,972,00. What will it be this year? It will be $23,906,000, an increase of over $7 million. That is over a 40 per cent increase in the three years since the Liberals came to power.

The main office expenses are even more curious. This is our tax collector who is collecting our tax dollars: Main office expenses in 1985-86, $695,000; main office expenses this year, $1,273,000. That is approximately an 86 per cent increase in the expenditures of our Ministry of Revenue in main office.

In the ministry responsible for senior citizens’ affairs, ministry administrative expenses in 1985-86 were $170,000. This year the main office expenses will be $433,000, an increase of $263,000, over a 150 per cent increase in main office expenses -- not for services for seniors; in main office expenses -- since the Liberals came to power.

In the Ministry of Skills Development, which has been a target for restraint and constraint by the Treasurer in this budget, we have talked about a reduction in the budget of Skills Development, but guess what did not get reduced? Ministry administration. In 1985-86 ministry administration was $4,031,000. What is it this year? Thanks to the Treasurer, the Premier and the Liberal government of Ontario, it is $14,941,000, an increase of $9,930,000, a 220 per cent increase in ministry administrative costs since the Liberals came to power.

In the Ministry of the Solicitor General in 1985-86, $10,867,000, according to their own figures, I say to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). What is it this year? According to their own figures, $20,661,000, an increase of $9,800,000. That is over a 90 per cent increase in ministry administrative costs.

Main office expenses, in case we want to get technical: $1,127,000 in 1985-86. What is it this year in the main office of the Solicitor General? It is $1,846,000, an increase of $719,000 in three years, a 64 per cent increase in her main office expenditures in the three years since the Liberals came to power. She ought to be ashamed of herself, because it is taxpayers who are paying for this.

In the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, $18,227,000 in 1985-86 for something called ministry administration. What is it this year? According to the Liberal documents, $27,495,000, an increase of $9,268,000 since the Liberals came to power. That is over a 50 per cent increase in ministry administrative costs, thanks to the ministers of Tourism and Recreation, the Treasurer, the Premier and the Ontario Liberal Party.

In the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, even the Treasurer could not hold the line. In 1985-86, ministry administrative costs were $6,787,000. This year it is $8,088,000, an increase of $1,301,000, almost a 20 per cent increase in the ministry administrative costs of the Treasurer himself. No wonder he wanted to increase your taxes. No wonder he wanted 11 per cent more revenues this year to operate his government.

In ministry after ministry, in ministry administrative costs and main office expenses, this government has no sense of restraint, no sense of constraint, no sense of proper financial management and no sense of fiscal responsibility. The numbers are clear from the government’s own documents.

Then we get to the sad games that the Premier and the Treasurer of this province have played on the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) and the people of northern Ontario. He deserves better treatment than he has been getting from the Premier and the Treasurer. He has been trying his best to improve services for the people of northern Ontario, and what happened to him? He got sandbagged by a Premier and a Treasurer who do not give a damn about northern Ontario. That is what happened to him.

The government announced, in its first year in office, a $100-million northern development fund. The fact of the matter is that it was over five years, and that was two years ago. What has happened to it? According to the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister of Northern Development’s announcement two weeks ago, it is going to be rolled into the northern Ontario heritage fund, which we will never see.

Then we have this curious Liberal policy whenever it comes to election time in the north. First of all, it was a $100 tax rebate for every northern resident taxpayer in Ontario. Then it was equalized gasoline. That was the next one. What happened to those? Gone by the wayside.

And on the eve of the 1987 election, in January 1987, the Premier said, “We are sorry we are getting $30 million from the softwood lumber tax in northern Ontario.” He said in Sudbury, “We are going to put it back into retraining laid-off resource workers in northern Ontario.”

Three months later that was cancelled. He said: “No, we’re not going to do that. We’re going to have a northern Ontario heritage fund, and that is where the $30 million is going to go. The northern development councils will review the program and establish the criteria and make recommendations for the allocation of funds.”

What has happened in the year since that announcement took place? Was the $30 million deposited in a bank account in northern Ontario to collect interest and be distributed by the Minister of Northern Development? No. The Treasurer and the Premier would not give their own Minister of Northern Development the authority to dispense that $30 million. They kept their hands on it, it is gone and no interest is there. That money is gone. We will never see that $30 million they collected last year from northern Ontario industries under the softwood lumber tax provisions.

Now what do they say? They say, “Well, we’re going to do it every year now for the next 12 years.” We have yet to see a single cent spent. We have yet to see a program announced in detail. We have yet to see guidelines given to the northern development councils. The minister has tried. He has been sandbagged at every turn by the Treasurer, who does not want to let go of that $30 million no matter what he says, and by the Premier, who is not making this a priority even though they announced it a year ago.

What did we find out?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: We are doing better than with Davis.

Mr. Pope: That takes me back to 1985 with the announcement of the northern development fund. They announced $20 million a year over five years. Then the estimates came out about a month later. The Liberals had reduced it to $17 million, as estimated, and they actually spent only $10 million of the northern development fund in that first year.

Guess what the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines of that year show? For a $10-million expenditure item under the northern development fund, there is almost precisely a $10-million deficit or reduction in the economic development and social development fund in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, so in fact the northern development fund got not a single dollar of new money. It was taken from another envelope in that same ministry and spent under another title and there was no additional financial commitment from this government to the northern development fund.

1650

They have consistently underspent in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. They have consistently refused to support the efforts of the Minister of Northern Development in his attempts to get economic development programs going. It is fine for the Liberals to say, “Well, what did you do when you were there?” Let us talk about it, I say to the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) who thinks he knows everything about northern Ontario.

I recall a document called the BILD document, and under that document we had forest management agreements, pulp and paper modernization programs going on --

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: That is illegal now, you know that.

Mr. Pope: Oh, yes.

-- pulp and paper modernization programs going on that gave long-term job security and community security across northern Ontario. We had forest management agreements that gave local employment opportunities in the reforestation industry, a lot of contractors to do development work in access roads and in actual planting.

We had the aeromagnetic survey program. If they think what we did was so wrong, why have they continued with it? We started the aeromagnetic survey program which is ongoing now, which has actually led to the development of new mines and the creation of new jobs in the mining industry of northern Ontario.

We had the core storage library program under BILD that the prospectors and developers needed to cut exploration costs and development costs for mining in northern Ontario. We had private tree nurseries that established small businesses in small communities from one end of Ontario to the other and created full-time and part-time jobs under the BILD program.

I say to this Liberal government, where are the specific economic projects in the private sector it can point to that it has created in the last three years which are developing new job opportunities for residents of northern Ontario? Point them out. Stand up now and name them. They cannot name a single project in the private sector, a new program that they have funded to create jobs in northern Ontario. That says something of the mandate of this Liberal Party towards northern Ontario.

Their out-of-control administrative and main office expenses said something about what they think is a priority for the people of this province -- not a better health care system, not improvements in education, but expenditures on themselves and 8,000 new civil servants.

We disagree with those priorities and we will not support their budget.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments.

Mr. Black: The member for Cochrane South would have us believe that only a former Tory government was a responsible government fiscally, that only the Tories knew how to manage the financial affairs of this province. He uses a great many facts and figures, and he is a man who is in a good position to do that. He is an experienced politician and he in fact was in the driver’s seat at one time. He was a key member of the team that governed this province. He was, as all of us know, one of the fathers of underfunding.

He uses facts, but he does not use all the facts and he interprets them to his advantage. He would have the people of this province believe that this government spends most of its money on administrative costs.

Let us look at some other facts and let us examine the record. Under the last Conservative government in this province, for example, spending on schools for new buildings was less than $75 million. That was in 1984-85; a Tory government. The following year, the first year of a Liberal government, that figure was doubled to over $140 million. The year after that, the second year, it was tripled. Now we have the situation in the third year of a Liberal government that the spending on schools in this province has increased to over $380 million.

The Tories did govern this province. They governed it by running up huge deficits and by consistently underfunding our schools, our hospitals, our roads and our houses. Now it is up to us to try to clean up the mess that has been left us, to try to right the wrongs that have been left behind.

Mr. Polsinelli: I was interested in listening to the speech by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I think he proved one thing, that he can read numbers, because in the full half hour he was speaking, every second word was a number. Usually it is full of empty rhetoric; this was just empty numbers because he started talking about the budget and, quite frankly, there were some things that were completely inaccurate.

I would like to point to one of them in the few seconds I have, and that is the issue he took with the new surtax that is payable on tax payable over $10,000; that is, now if you have more than $10,000 in tax payable, you have to pay a 10 per cent surtax. The member indicated that would kick in at an approximate income of $40,000.

The reality is that the surtax of 10 per cent begins, if you are a single person, at $85,000; that is, you have to earn over $85,000 for the surtax to kick in. If you are married and have two children, it begins at $88,000. That is consistent with this government’s general philosophy of trying not to take very much from the low-income earners, but taking more from the high-income earners; that is, take from the people who can afford to pay and redistribute it to some of the lower-income earners in our society.

That surtax, which is expected to gain about $110 million for this province, will be used, like some of the other taxing and revenue measures, to provide for the hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits that we will be giving to low-income earners.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions and comments? Does the member for Cochrane South wish to respond?

Mr. Pope: Yes, I would like to respond. The numbers I quoted are from Liberal documents. The abuse of main office and ministry administrative expenses is clearly documented by the government’s own estimates, tabled since they came to power, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

They claim they have improved the education system. We have got more students in portables than ever before in this province, thanks to Liberal administration.

They talk about the underfunding of hospitals. They were running huge deficits as Progressive Conservatives. Hospitals have never found it tougher to survive than they have under the Liberal administration. They are having to cut services to sick people because the government is spending more on the main office expenses of the Ministry of Health, as a percentage increase, than it is on hospitals. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. The office operations of the Ministry of Health are more important than the hospitals, according to their own statistics.

My friend talks about a redistribution of taxes. He talks about the Liberal philosophy of redistributing taxes. The only redistribution I can see is taking it from the taxpayers and paying it to themselves to run the government of this province. That is the kind of redistribution that we, as Progressive Conservatives, will not accept.

They have got a disgraceful record of out-of-control ministry administrative expenses, main office expenses that they must account for to the taxpayers of this province. They have grabbed $1.2 billion more of their money out of their pockets this year, and they do not want to justify it. They do not want to show the increase in administrative costs that has led to this increase. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. How could they even vote for this budget?

Mr. Matrundola: It is with honour and respect that I rise before this House for my maiden speech. While I have spoken briefly on other occasions, this is my first opportunity to address the House at some length.

As the first member for the new riding of Willowdale, I would like to thank all the members right here in the House for the warm welcome they have given me and for making me feel at home here in this Legislature.

I was not blessed to be born in this great country, as my children and millions of other people were. I was born in Italy, and at the age of 21, I immigrated to Edinburgh, Scotland. Then, in February 1963, I was blessed to immigrate to this great, vast and beautiful country, Canada, specifically to Seven Islands, or Sept-Îles, la capitale de la Côte-Nord. Du moins c’était la capitale de la Côte-Nord dans le temps, avant que M. Brian Mulroney, en tant que président d’Iron Ore, fasse ce qu’il a fait à Iron Ore et à la Côte-Nord. Let us hope that Mr. Mulroney will not do to Canada what he did to Iron Ore Co. of Canada and what he did to Sept-Îles and the north shore.

1700

I have long admired the type of democracy that is practised here in Canada. While I have been viewing the political system from behind the stage, I have always had a dream and a gut feeling that I could one day become part of it. I never lost faith. I never lost sight of my positive self-image and of my ability to get results. As Henry Ford said: “Think that you can, or think that you can’t. Either way, you’ll be right.” I memorized that quote and I frequently remind myself of it. And finally, the incredible moment: the dream came true.

On September 10, the people of Willowdale put their faith and trust in me to represent them, to bring forward their views and to make decisions on their behalf and in their best interest. I would like to take this first opportunity, right here from this honourable chamber, to thank them for the confidence they had in me and for the privilege they afforded me to represent them. I shall do my very best to carry out the duties bestowed upon me.

Willowdale, in the heart of North York, the fourth largest city in Canada, is a new riding made up of parts of the old ridings of Armourdale, York Mills and Oriole. The people of this riding have had excellent representatives in the past, including strong cabinet ministers such as the Minister of Health and Bette Stephenson, and they are used to their MPP working hard on their behalf. It is my desire to continue this tradition, to serve my constituents faithfully so that they will feel good and proud of the decision they made on September 10, and for having participated in the democratic process.

I have risen today to address the motion concerning the budget statement for the province for 1988 that was tabled on April 20 by the Treasurer. Unfortunately, due to the filibustering by the opposition, I was deprived of hearing my first budget speech here in the House, and so were many other new MPPs. I am sure it would have been a very eloquent address by our fine Treasurer.

This budget statement sets forth some of the initiatives and priorities of this government and addresses, I am glad to say, many issues of concern to the people of Willowdale as well as to the people of Ontario. While the government cannot solve every issue overnight, much as it would like to, it is taking an orderly approach to the most pressing matters.

Willowdale, like every other riding, is a unique area, but its people and the issues are not unique. They face many of the same issues as the rest of Metro Toronto and the rest of the province. Willowdale was mainly developed immediately after the Second World War and many of the people who moved in at that time are still living there. About 66 per cent of the dwellings are single-family dwellings and about 62 perœnt of the families own their own homes.

We have in Willowdale a good solid base with English being the mother tongue, as well as another good base from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds. Downtown North York, which is in the centre of Willowdale, offers the most magnificent skyline of new and beautiful skyscrapers and it is home to many large corporations that provide work for thousands of people and a good tax base for the city with a heart.

One concern of the people of Willowdale is education. While many of the people who moved into Willowdale when it was being developed are still living there, the area is also rejuvenating itself by the inflow of families with school-age children. About 28 per cent of the population of Willowdale is between the ages of five and 24. The parents are concerned whether their children are getting the proper education to be able to be prepared for the future.

I am very glad, therefore, to see the large amounts of money that are being made available to elementary and secondary schools in order to reduce class sizes in grades 1 and 2, to provide for additional textbooks and other learning materials and to improve the availability and teaching of computer technology to students. We will be spending $430 million on these projects over the next three years. The select committee on education will be further examining and exploring our approach to teaching to point us in the right direction so that our children can compete and succeed in this fast-changing world.

In the area of post-secondary education, it is refreshing to see the government’s commitment to excellence. Additional funding to ensure accessibility and funding for capital projects will go a long way towards restoring our university system after years of neglect. In 1988-89, support for post-secondary institutions will be 41 per cent higher than it was in 1984-85.

Under all, is the land. Upon its wise utilization and widely allocated ownership depend the survival and growth of free institutions and our civilization. Through proper government, the land resource of the nation, and especially of this province, reaches its highest use and private land ownership its widest distribution. This government, by proper direction to regional and municipal governments, is instrumental in moulding the form of our communities and the living and working conditions of our people.

Such functions impose grave social responsibilities upon us, responsibilities each of us can meet only by intelligent preparation and by considering it a civic or a provincial governmental duty to dedicate ourselves to the fulfilment of our obligations to society.

I am prepared to assume this responsibility and discharge my duties to the best of my ability, and I trust that my colleagues both from the government side of the House and from the opposition will do likewise.

This leads to the area of affordable housing. The residential area of Willowdale offers a large variety of luxurious residences in both single-family and high-rise housing. However, more affordable housing is needed to accommodate new families coming on stream, as well as seniors and the less fortunate.

I would like to see all the present residents of Willowdale have the option to remain in Willow-dale, if they so desire, because while about 62 per cent of the people of Willowdale own their homes, we must still look out for the 38 per cent who rent and hope some day to own their own homes.

Willowdale is currently undergoing a large transition. With the development of the Yonge Street corridor, many single-family homes are being demolished to build larger ones or to build high-rises. While this accommodates more families, it causes the remaining homes to be pushed out of reach for the average family.

We should also be providing housing for seniors and disabled persons who may not be able to be completely independent but who do not have to be institutionalized. This government is addressing many of these concerns through programs announced in the budget.

1710

These programs include the Ontario home ownership savings plan, which is a good incentive for young people to start saving for a down payment for a home. Furthermore, the use of government land or the money raised through the sale of excess government land, as well as incentives and encouragements at the local and the municipal board levels, to plan for low and moderately priced homes, will make programs creating affordable homes possible.

Also, the lending of Canada pension plan money to nonprofit groups is a novel idea which does not cost us anything and will create another 30,000 affordable rentable units, thus accommodating many people on the long waiting lists, some of whom unfortunately are single parents with children and fearful of ending up in hostels.

We will also have to examine other programs in the future, such as housing allowance, so that people are not forced to move into subsidized housing. Rather, they should get a portion of their fair rent subsidized, in order that they may create many thousands of new units. This could alleviate or completely wipe out the long waiting list for subsidized housing. However, due care is necessary in this process to ensure that the amount of housing allowance is commensurate with the earnings of the applicants.

The area of health care is one that we are all concerned about. With costs increasing at alarming rates, a new and innovative approach will have to be examined. I am sure that the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy will be addressing this.

For the immediate future, however, we will be removing another 30,000 low-income earners from having to pay Ontario health insurance plan premiums, we will be increasing the operating and capital expenditures for hospitals and we will be rerouting some of the lottery profits to the health care system. In this way we will ensure that all citizens continue to have access to quality health care.

Another area that I would like to comment on today is transportation. The idea of co-ordinated policies, programs and plans to ensure the orderly development of the greater Toronto area sounds great and sounds simple, but it has not been done in the past. This has left us with insufficient transportation routes, which is threatening the further development of the city. With the new development north of Steeles Avenue, the traffic flow south on Bathurst, Yonge and Bayview is reaching unbearable levels and most people who try to drive on those streets would say we are already past that point.

This issue must be dealt with in the very near future, and ideas like the Sheppard subway and the extension of both the Yonge and Spadina subway lines up to Steeles Avenue, as well as a subway line along Steeles Avenue and the extending south of the Allen expressway, must be thoroughly examined. The completion of Highway 403 and Highway 407, as announced in the budget, I believe is a start in this direction.

Unfortunately all of the programs that I have mentioned have a cost. Nevertheless, the citizens of this province want these services and realize that they must be paid for. The tax increases that have been announced in the budget will pay for these services and keep the government’s net cash requirement at its lowest level in 19 years.

While some of these tax increases seem harsh at first glance, the increased sales tax credits, property tax credits, OHIP exemptions and shelter subsidies will protect those less able to pay. As we are all aware, the time to lower the deficit is when the economy is growing. These measures will ensure that we can provide the necessary services now and will also give us the capacity to continue these programs if the growth of our economy slows down.

In order to ensure that the economy continues to expand, the government is committing to undertake the investment necessary to fuel the engine of economic development. The Premier’s Council has called for a national strategy on research and development, and along these lines the budget introduces several measures to encourage research and development, strengthens our high-tech workforce and prepares Ontario industry for the future.

As I said at the beginning, we cannot solve all these issues overnight, and the people of Willowdale, Metro and Ontario realize that. What we must do is chart a course to better the lives of all Ontarians. It is my considered opinion that this budget will accomplish that goal.

I have enjoyed the past eight months as a new MPP. I have learned a great deal, and I look forward to busy and exciting times ahead. I also plan to do my utmost to make sure that all of us do what we can to improve the quality of life for all Ontarians, as well as the people of Willowdale. I do not shy away from the issues. I confront them, and I do my best to resolve them.

I ran for public office because I believe in service. For years, I have freely and generously given my time to the organizations of my former profession, real estate, and I still do, not only at the local level but also provincially, nationally and, in a wider sphere, internationally. The experience I have gained over the years, I am positive, is an asset in serving this honourable House, the government and, above all, my constituents.

In closing, let us remember that the service we render is the rent we pay for the space we occupy. I urge everyone to support the Treasurer’s motion on the budget so that we can continue to provide service to the people of Ontario and work to improve their lives.

Mr. Reycraft: I just want to take a moment to compliment the member for Willowdale for his speech. The speech is his first in this Legislature, the first of many, I am sure, and he has very eloquently expressed his understanding for his constituency. His sense of responsibility for the community that he represents in this chamber is very obvious from his remarks, and I am sure, given that and the abilities he has already demonstrated here, he is going to be a fine representative for Willowdale for many years.

Mr. Matrundola: I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague for his fine comments. Yes, it has been my first. I hope it will not be the last and that there will be many to come. We have to do our very best to work together and, as I said, to work in a positive manner in order that we can represent our people well, that we can serve our government well for the betterment of people’s lives in Ontario. The attitude I always take when I do things is, if it is to me, it is up to me. I hope the rest of the people in the House will take the same attitude and the people of Ontario will benefit, as well as all of us here.

Mr. Charlton: It gives me somewhat less pleasure than I would like to be able to express to get up and address the budget here today. I have listened with considerable care to the speeches of some of the new members on the government side and to the interjections of some of the new members on the government side during the course of this debate over the last week and a half. I thought it might be appropriate if some of those new members began to understand not only the comments that are coming from the opposition side, not always from the same perspective, but critical comments none the less in relation to this budget, and started to understand some of the background around those comments, and more specifically, if I try to enlighten them, as they seem particularly naïvely unaware of the source of the public anger around this budget.

1720

If they had known the Treasurer and listened to the Treasurer in this House over the course of the last 10 or 12 years as I have, and for even longer periods of time as some of my colleagues and some of those in the third party have, they would begin to understand the aggravation we feel and the insincerity in terms of what is being said about this budget and the needs of the government in relation to this budget.

I recall the last budget in this province that created a public response comparable to the response around this budget, probably not even quite as great. It was the former Conservative government budget in 1982. That was a budget that began the process of the Conservative Party collapse in Ontario. That was the budget that started the process of bringing this government to power.

Obviously, those who lead the government party in terms of its thinking -- in terms of its government thinking, at least -- have learned no lessons from the failures of the past administration. That is certainly reflected in the comments of some of the new members across the way, although perhaps they cannot be expected to be as familiar with the things that went on here over the course of the last 15 years.

If they had been here and listened to the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who is now the Treasurer, over the course of those years, they would be ashamed to hear the words that have come out of his mouth in 1988 in relation to this budget. They would all be ashamed. I cannot understand how the Treasurer can say some of the things he has said over the course of the last three weeks with a straight face.

I recall in the late 1970s when the Treasurer sat just down here in the front row and I sat just back there. We used to have some cross-dialogue in terms of property taxation in this province and, more specifically, property taxes on his farm, which happens to straddle the boundary between Brant county and Hamilton-Wentworth, the bulk of the farm being in Brant and a small portion of the farm being in Hamilton-Wentworth.

I happen to have assessed the portion in Hamilton-Wentworth in the early 1970s when the province was going through the process of preparing for market value assessment. I recall an occasion when the Treasurer, because he felt the property taxes on his farm were too high, actually launched an appeal against the assessment on that farm. For the new members on the other side, so they can begin to understand, if the local authorities either in Hamilton-Wentworth or in Brant had done what this Treasurer did with the retail sales tax this year -- well!

My colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) pointed out very carefully during his speech a little earlier this afternoon that this portrayal by the Treasurer of a one per cent increase in the retail sales tax from seven per cent to eight per cent is not, in fact, a one per cent increase at all; it is a 14.3 per cent increase in the retail sales tax, or something in that range.

If either of the municipalities I have mentioned had sent a notice to the Treasurer setting out a 14 per cent increase in his property taxes, he would have been up on his feet and screaming, which is precisely what is happening on this side of the House and precisely what is happening out there across Ontario in relation to the tax increases that have been imposed by this budget.

He must not stand up in this House in his sanctimonious way and say to us, “We have to pay the bills and you guys are wrong,” when, in fact, the man who is saying that would be doing the very same thing and does the very same thing when the feds increase taxes.

I heard a couple of the new members get up this afternoon and laud the fact that the cash requirements in this budget are the lowest in 19 years. Are those cash requirements the lowest in 19 years because of good management, because of fiscal responsibility, or because this government just shuts its eyes to all of the problems in terms of the way it operates and increases taxes to reduce that deficit? That is precisely what has happened here and that should not make anybody happy.

If it has a problem the government paints over it, so it cannot be seen any more, by increasing taxes. We are in a time when the Treasurer in his budget predicts that inflation, the consumer price index, in 1988 in Ontario is going to run about 4.7 per cent. We are in a period where he is predicting in his budget that the total of personal incomes in the province will increase by about 8.5 per cent in 1988-89, and that corporate profits will increase by better than 14 per cent, I believe it is 14.4 per cent, in the same period.

We are talking about gross personal incomes and we are talking about gross corporate profits. Members opposite should just think of how cynical each and every one of them would have been three years ago or four years ago if the Conservative government of the day had brought down a budget that increased personal taxes in Ontario by $1.3 billion, at a time when we are trying to keep inflation down, at a time when personal incomes are increasing at a much slower rate than corporate profits and all of the tax increases were extracted from personal incomes, and none of the tax increases were extracted from the corporate sector. The members opposite would be on their feet screaming foul. That is what they would be doing.

Instead, they buy the line, with a couple of exceptions; we have heard the rumours about the exceptions who have not, at least in their own constituencies, to their own constituents, supported the tax increases in this budget. They stand up and blindly defend instead of becoming part of the process that could help us ultimately to change the kind of approach that is being taken here and the kind of approach which, a number of my colleagues have pointed out, is in reality very little different from what we have had over the course of the last 40 years in terms of government in this province.

The only period that any of us could really describe as significantly different were the two years between May of 1985 and September of 1987. I want members to think about what it is that is happening here with this budget, what it is the Treasurer and the Premier are attempting to do in the spring of 1988, some seven or eight months after the election and some three years away from the next one.

1730

They are employing an old Tory tactic in Ontario, a tactic which I and the Treasurer stood in this House and criticized the Tories for using in the 1970s, that old tactic of have an election, get your majority, bring in a budget, do everything in that first budget that is offensive, do everything in that first budget which causes pain, do everything in that first budget which gets segments of the society and the economy mad at the government and get it out of the way in the first year.

Again, that is an old tactic, and I want to tell the members opposite that it is not only an old tactic, but it is an old tactic that the public does not buy any more. I refer again to the Tory budget of 1982, where again they tried the same tactic after they got their majority back in 1981 and hoped that by 1985 the people of the province would have forgotten about all of the damage.

Mr. Wiseman: No tax grab like this.

Mr. Mackenzie: It’s just second best, that’s all.

Mr. Charlton: You did not do quite as good a job as the Treasurer did this time, I will concur.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You will address your remarks to the Speaker.

Mr. Charlton: But, Mr. Speaker, it is a tactic which no longer works, and the members opposite should stand forewarned that what this budget has done, the anger and scepticism that it has generated out there in the public, the loss of trust that it is causing out there will affect what the Treasurer and the Premier are forced to do in every budget from this point on, from now until the next election. They are not going to be able to follow their plan the way they had intended.

They will start to react as the federal Conservative government has reacted. They will start to do whatever is necessary to try not only to stop the decline that is going to happen in the polls but to reverse that trend once the decline has been stopped.

It is a new political era in this country. It is no longer an era where governments entrench and stay in power for 40 years. Unfortunately, the Treasurer and the Premier brought in a budget on the assumption that it was their turn for 40 years, and it ain’t going to happen. Public scepticism in this province and the loss of trust, which are already being expressed in the letters and phone calls --

Mr. Black: And the petitions.

Mr. Charlton: -- and the petitions, are enormous. When Garth Turner, the business editor of the Toronto Sun, did his little survey with his mail-in cards, he was totally astounded by the response he got. And so he should be, because 10 years ago he would not have received that response, simply because 10 years ago people in this province felt the Tories had been there forever and there was nothing you could do to change it. That is what they believed.

They no longer believe that. The people in this province have learned that governments can be made and governments can be broken by their own actions. This is what the government is going to see start to happen, from the day this budget was tabled and onward to the next election.

As well, I listen to a number of the members on the other side when they are responding to speeches from this side, making comments about increases in capital spending in education and health care, reductions in the deficit --

Mr. Black: You were listening.

Mr. Charlton: Oh, we listen. The member would be surprised. We hear more of what the Liberals say than they hear of what we say.

It is just interesting to note that the parliamentary assistant has pointed out a number of times that we tend to forget certain things in our speeches, and it is true. We do not focus on every single item in a budget. Certainly when we have a bad budget like this one, we do not go looking for the little good. It is too hard to find. It creates too many headaches to find.

But it is interesting how those on the other side conveniently forget a budget of just one short year ago, just three months before the election, a budget in which the government across the way talked about reaching out and touching somebody, reaching out and touching everybody, a budget in which the government across the way squandered $1 billion in an effort to try to touch everybody in this province in some fashion and at the same time accomplish nothing except an election victory.

It bought them the election victory, and we grant them that, but this budget that we are here dealing with now and this fiscal responsibility that they keep throwing at us is in large part a result of the $1 billion they squandered last year.

Can members imagine what we could have done in education capital spending with that $1 billion, or splitting it with the health care system? Would we have been here talking about the need for $1.3 billion in tax increases? It is interesting that the tax increases are only slightly more than what they squandered last year. Perhaps we could have avoided tax increases altogether this year if this government had been just a little more fiscally responsible 12 months ago instead of throwing all its eggs into an election basket and spending $1 billion to ensure it would win that election.

They should not get up in a sanctimonious way and talk to us about fiscal responsibility, either, because what has happened over the course of the last 12 months, in my view, has been the most irresponsible set of budgetary decisions this province has seen in probably 20 years: spend $1 billion, get themselves a majority, then raise taxes and make the people of Ontario pay for that election campaign out of their own pockets. That is the most disgusting set of circumstances I can recall in my political life.

Even aside from talking about history, let us take a look for a few moments at some of the priorities in this budget. Some of those across the way like to brag about the limited progress in a number of sectors, and they keep referring repeatedly to the capital funding which has been pumped into the education sector over the course of the last three years since the Liberals came to power.

Of course, I said we listen. We always listen, and we will not forget. We will throw all of this back at them in one way or another. The Deputy Speaker knows that. The Deputy Speaker has not been here all that long, but he has been here long enough to know that we listen. That is why he listens. Members should watch him. He listens better than anybody over there. He knows what is going on.

New capital spending for education facilities in Ontario in the 1998-89 budget: Let us forget about their four-year package for a minute. What did we get this year? We got $91 million of new capital funds for the building of schools. That is all the Treasurer could find when the large public school boards -- just the public boards, never mind the separate boards -- were asking this province for $1.7 billion. That is what they need right now in 1988 in new student spaces in Ontario. Those guys have come up with $91 million.

Mr. Black: That is what they’d like, not what they need.

Mr. Charlton: That is what they need. How much did the Treasurer manage to find in new handouts to the corporate sector in this budget?

Mr. Black: You want us to spend more? Is that what you’re saying, we’re not spending enough?

Mr. Charlton: No, I am suggesting to you that your priorities are a little screwed up, though. Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, and you shall ignore the interjections.

1740

Mr. Charlton: I shall. At any rate, it is my view that the Treasurer’s priorities are seriously out of whack: $91 million in new money to deal with a desperate crisis in terms of education facilities in Ontario. My colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) was up the other day in the House talking about a school in Windsor which is falling apart. The roof is leaking all through the school, and they do not get a red nickel to deal with that facility.

But the corporate sector in this province got $147 million of new handouts from this government: tax breaks, giveaways. Why, with a booming economy? I do not hear any of the members over there standing up and saying: “This sector of the economy is in trouble, that sector of the economy is in trouble.” All I hear from over there is: “Ontario’s economy is booming, and we did it. We’re proud.”

But the government had to come up with $147 million, new dollars, that could have gone into our health care system, that could have gone into our education system. I hope it is proud of that kind of priority, where it gives one and a half times as much away to the so-called booming corporate sector, but it cannot find any more money for health care or for education.

Mr. Black: You don’t want to keep people working. You don’t want industry to expand.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Charlton: You are telling us how well the private sector is doing. You are telling us government should get out of the private sector, so get out of the private sector.

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker.

Mr. Charlton: Health care: We have a situation of absolute chaos in our health care system. We have a situation where this government was forced in this budget to increase health care spending, in one budget, by $1.2 billion.

I have listened carefully to the rhetoric over the last number of years around health care and what has to happen in health care in order to try to start bringing the escalating costs of health care under control. The rhetoric started in this party in the mid- 1970s, it moved into the Liberal Party in the early 1980s and it is even being talked about by members of the former government now, and that is the need to shift the emphasis of growth in our health care system away from institutions and into the communities: community-based care, home care and support services in the community.

What did we end up with in this budget? We ended up with $1.2 billion of additional expenditures on health care while the resources which are being placed in the community programs actually declined.

The member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) has been here long enough and he has heard the debates around the change of emphasis we need to see happening in health care. He knows and he understands that if you have three-year waiting lists for nursing home beds and you have two-and-a-half-year waiting lists for chronic care beds, and community health services are much cheaper than those institutional services, you can eliminate those waiting lists much more quickly by putting the new moneys into community services, probably at twice the rate per dollar you would spend to get those people off the waiting lists by pumping the new money into the institutional aspect of our health care system.

But that is not what this government did. It spent an additional $1.2 billion on the health care system and pumped virtually all of it into the system which the Minister of Health, the Treasurer, the Premier and others have been telling us for years is not the way to go for the future. Where did the Liberals lose the concept and the direction? It certainly is not apparent in this budget.

What has been done in this budget with the additional new $1.2-billion worth of money that is put into the health care system is to put it into exactly those services that the Premier and the Treasurer have been telling this House for years, on the record -- it is all there in black and white -- were and are the wrong place to put it. Take the easy way out is what they have done.

I do not understand where all of the commitments that party across the way has made over the years have gone, in one quick budget, a budget that was most likely, or for the greatest extent, necessitated by a little fiasco that happened in the budget a year ago and the squandering of $1 billion that they had to play with and did not use very appropriately, and now they are going to have to pay the price for those actions a year ago.

There are others who, I think, wish to join the debate on the budget, but I thought it would be useful in my comments to focus on some of what brought us to this budget and the so-called absolute need for what the Treasurer had to do. I thought it would be useful and interesting for some of the new members opposite to understand where the frustration and the feelings about the direction this budget sets that are being expressed from this side of the House come from. At least to some extent, with a couple of members over there, I think I have accomplished that.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions? If not, are there any members wishing to participate in the debate? The member for Lanark-Renfrew.

Mr. Wiseman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank you for putting up with the member for Lanark-Renfrew. Over the 18 years I have been here and you have been here we have got a little greyer, but I think we just got a little better.

I would like to say that in the 18 years I have been here, I have never witnessed such a grab for money as this government did in this last budget. My leader the other day mentioned that it was not $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion but rather closer to $1.8 billion, and that really is the true figure. There is always a little fudging there. Having had a son-in-law who is an accountant go over it quite fast, he picked out for me this little mistake of $450 million that was not added to that amount; more about that later.

I have a farm manager at home, and she keeps me on track. I know the Treasurer has a farm manager at home managing the farm, as I do, and I am sure she has told her hubby that this grab was going to hurt the small farmers as well as the small businessmen. I am sure she has told him that around many quiet dinners since that occasion.

He had a growth of about 8.2 per cent in the budget to spend on whatever he deemed necessary, and that is about twice the rate of inflation. But instead of that, he brings in a budget, as has been mentioned before many times now, of about $1.8 billion.

I would like to ask the Treasurer, if he were here, what he would do if he were talking to a little man in a nursing home whom I spoke to. He was saying that out of his comfort allowance his smokes cost him $80 out of that $112, and his bottle of liquor once a month costs him $20. I said, “Well, you really don’t have to smoke and you really don’t have to drink,” and he said, “At 82,” or 83, “you’re going to deprive me of that.”

Now, I hate to go back to that fellow. He had only $12 left after that, and now the Treasurer has taken all of that $12 in the amount he has put up the tax on cigarettes and liquor. I do not smoke and I do not drink very much, so it does not really affect me. They are always known as sin taxes, but this man just happens to represent a fair number of those poor people out in nursing homes. That is all the comfort they feel they get out of life.

1750

The gasoline tax: I am glad to see that my friend from the Belleville area is here, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil). We did have a discussion last night in the lobby of our hotel where we stay. I do not know how he justifies saying that this budget is going to help tourism in Ontario. When he goes back to Belleville or eastern Ontario and says that he is raising the tax on the gasoline that goes into most of the outboard motors by 18 cents a gallon -- we know what happened to Joe Clark when he and Mr. Crosbie brought down a budget a while ago where they took an 18-cent grab. The Liberals of the day in Ottawa jumped on that and really hammered the dickens out of them and won the election.

Here we see this government taking 18 cents and saying it is going to help tourism. It says the one per cent on the sales tax is going to help tourism too. That goes on the food, the accommodation, the whole bit. I think it is kind of hard to sell that we have something in there for tourism. In fact, in this budget there is very little, if anything, for eastern Ontario. I did make a statement that if I were one of the cabinet ministers who sat around that cabinet table when eastern Ontario was discussed, I would be disgusted not to get something in there besides an honourable mention.

The income tax: This is where I say the Treasurer forgot to add the $450 million. Those figures really get me. Added to what we have been saying, to the $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion, it brings it up to more like $1.8 billion.

The sales tax is going up one per cent. I wonder what the Treasurer would tell a person who comes in to a store. I think now of something that I and my family have an interest in, a shoe store, where a child, an infant, six months to eight months of age goes in for a pair of new boots and the family has to pay sales tax because most of those boots are now over $30. These boots, whether they are Savage, Buster Brown or whatever, run around $34 or $35. You have to pay tax on the little infant boots, and now it goes from seven per cent to eight per cent. Would it not have been nice if the Treasurer had seen fit, in his wisdom, to move that $30 up a little? It has been the same ever since we brought it in years ago, without any increase at all.

On the sales tax too, I think we should look at the additional tax a family of four is going to have to pay. This is what I will be telling the people in Lanark-Renfrew: “Look, you are paying about $112 more tax this year than you were last year. In the space of a year, you are looking at about $900 coming out of your income to pay for the sales tax.”

I should say, and the Deputy Speaker will remember this, back a few years ago when I was in cabinet and we were both a little younger, sales tax represented about $300 million or $400 million for each per cent. Now one per cent, with the growth in the province and the whole bit, represents $1 billion. This is one area where the Treasurer, since he has taken over and there have been good times in the province, has seen a growth.

On top of that, today we heard on the news -- we know that when this government took over, it lost its triple-A rating -- that just by the skin of its teeth it has held on to the double-A rating. The people who set this rating are looking at the fact that if there is a downturn in the economy at all, because of the government’s spending and because of the way it is doing their finances, it is quite possible that before this term is over the government will have only an A rating. We all know what that means to the taxpayers -- all the debt and the debt load and the interest that we have to pay on that.

I am glad to see the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) in the House. The school boards in the portion of Lanark and Renfrew that I represent did not do quite as well as those in the portion represented by the member for Renfrew North. I do not know why, but we did not. And we did not do quite as well as the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South). But I would like to say that I felt we deserved some attention in some of our requests for our school boards.

One of them I mentioned in a statement the other day, and that was for the R. Tait McKenzie School for the handicapped in Almonte. That school is so crowded, they tell me, that they have had to use the kitchen facilities to accommodate students who have been put out into the community by Rideau Regional and who are overcrowding that school. It is not a fancy school, I tell the members. It is just a plain school where we can get three classrooms for $94,000, so we all know that is not building it too fancy. But this is to accommodate special bed-chairs that these people have to have and special wheelchairs.

Here we are, we have the Ministry of Community and Social Services saying they should be out in the community, and if they can function out there, I am all for it. But I think the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) should be meeting that commitment. I have nothing against day care, but when we see over $2 million going into day care in the Ottawa area and forgetting a school like this for the handicapped, I think they are just as important and should be looked after.

When we see school roofs leaking, and giving a lot of problems, what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to wait until the roof caves in to have them repaired? Many of our requests for the Lanark County Board of Education were for roof repairs. We all know if you do not repair that, then the costs become greater and greater. We are not asking for fancy schools; we are just asking that the schools that are there be maintained the way we want to maintain our homes.

At the same time, it is pretty hard for us to sell this large tax increase. At the time when I was in cabinet, we were reducing the number of civil servants in this province. We have seen in the first two years the Liberals bring back about 5,000 of them, and in this budget there are almost another 3,000. We all know what that costs us. Probably the biggest part of our one per cent sales tax is going to pay the wages and the fringe benefits and everything of bigger government.

You see in the halls some of the people, Mr. Speaker, whom you would recognize maybe more than I would, who were with Mr. Trudeau when he was in Ottawa, and now they are up here. We know what happened and what Mr. Trudeau left the Tories with in Ottawa: a great big deficit and big government. Those people are recommending, it seems, to this government and to the Premier, along the same lines. Persons like yourself and myself, who have been here longer than most, can see what is taking place here. I know, Mr. Speaker, you are very neutral and you could not say anything along those lines, but I am sure if you could you would.

It is pretty hard to tell the people back home who need roads like the extension of Highway 417, which had been agreed upon by the member for Renfrew North through two or three elections and Paul Yakabuski, who represented Renfrew South, and with this last election the member for Renfrew North said that he was in favour of extending Highway 417 even further. We have seen him in a high place in cabinet and we have not seen Highway 417 move along at all.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Oh, oh, oh.

Mr. Wiseman: Well, there is one little bypass there.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The 406 is coming.

Mr. Wiseman: No, I checked that --

Mr. Speaker: The member may just take note of the clock.

Mr. Wiseman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and you know I am not a very windy person. With this government and what it has done, I could speak for an hour or two without any notes, but thank you very much for allowing me to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Does anyone care to adjourn the debate? Perhaps the member would adjourn the debate. Some other members may wish to have some comments or questions on your remarks.

On motion by Mr. Wiseman, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

May 4, 1988

JOHN WEIR FOOTE

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BRUCE CURTIS

WATER POLLUTION

BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

EASTERN ONTARIO FARMERS

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS MONTH

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FOREST FIRE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FOREST FIRE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

EDUCATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED

HOSPITAL FUNDING

NONPROFIT HOUSING

SKILLS TRAINING

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

VEHICLE EMISSIONS

TOURISM INDUSTRY

EXTENDED CARE

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

MINERAL EXPLORATION INCENTIVES

SCHOOL FUNDING

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)